First court date and first battle of the "temporary" motions

[flourdust]

My stbxBPDw and I are coming up on our first court date since filing for divorce this summer.

One attempt at mediation failed. I came prepared to negotiate a final settlement; she came with demands for more money and more custody while we wait for trial. I countered with a compromise, she walked away.

The initial court date is just supposed to be a meeting with the appointed judge to establish parameters -- will it be a trial or ADR; should evaluations be ordered, that sort of thing. However, she's filed a motion to be heard on the same day, asking for -- as with mediation -- more money, more custody. Her filing takes the form of a very long and rambling narrative (beginning with details about our first date!) unsupported by evidence.

Our responsive motion has been submitted. My attorney believes that "temporary" motions are likely to become permanent orders, so he says there is no point in holding anything back. We're responding with mountains of documentation on her parenting problems, dangerous behaviors, actual finances, etc.

I'm both anxious and calm now. Anxious because it's out of my hands ... .everything is up to whatever this judge decides. Calm because ... .well ... .it's out of my hands! I've done everything I can, and now I just need to wait.

I'm also anxious because my stbx is likely to dysregulate BIG TIME once she's copied on my mountain of evidence. She doesn't know (or fully understand) just how much I have on her, and it's not just my words -- it's from friends, family, and professionals. She'll likely feel extremely persecuted, which validates her victimization narrative and usually lets her feel justified in lashing out in retaliation.

[david]

My second attorney, and current one, is a good attorney. I learned something from him. Courts have to make their decision based on the evidence. I knew that saying before but I didn't realize what it meant.
First, there is verbal testimony. That, of course, is when you are on the stand. That is evidence in a court room and it is to be used.
Second, there is evidence that is presented. That is a procedure in which three copies are made. One for the court, one for opposing counsel, and one for you. It needs to be presented as evidence. It is then marked and numbered. It slows the court down and judges and attorneys don't like it because of that. However, if introduced as evidence it holds more sway than verbal testimony. It gets filed away after trial. If the judge makes a ruling disregarding evidence he/she must give a reason or the ruling can be challenged.
Temporary motions usually do become permanent. The way to change that is by having new evidence to change the previous ruling.
Hopefully your ex will dysregulate in front of the judge. My ex threatened our custody evaluator with legal action when she realized things were not going her way. She helped a lot.

[flourdust]

Well, I ... .kind of won. I think. I'll post more later. Still processing.

[Nope]

I'm glad for you that she pushed to have it heard on the same day. The order as it stood must not have been favorable. When it is, they tend to drag their feet to keep things from changing. From what you are saying it sounds like it went well. I know what it's like to need time to process when all is said and done. It's always nice to see when something works out.

[flourdust]

Thank you!

Let me see if I can frame this around the BPD issues, rather than all the legal process stuff.

The judge didn't want to hear oral arguments on the temporary motions. She said she would review all of the documentation submitted and then rule based on that. Our time in the courtroom was mostly her giving what I think is her standard speech to divorcing parents -- primarily about avoiding parental alienation.

She said that we were business partners in the business of raising a child, and that we needed to communicate in a businesslike manner, brief and focused on timely issues. She also talked about the negative effect on kids hearing one parent disparage the other. Now, I restrained myself from yelling "Amen!" and "Tell it, sister!" Although I think this was just her standard speech, and I doubt she read any of the testimony or emails that demonstrate my BPDw acting in just this manner, the message felt very personal to me. However, based on things BPDw said later, it's clear that she doesn't see herself through that filter and doesn't recognize her own behaviors (or finds ways to excuse them). So, I doubt the message is going to change how she acts in any way.

BPDw had a few moments in the courtroom where she began reacting emotionally, beginning to vent to the judge until her attorney reined her in. I began to see the dynamic that I suspected was going to emerge in this case -- my attempts to negotiate with BPDw would fail because of her distorted thinking, so her attorney would have to become my intermediary and talk her into accepting deals.

Apparently, my county has an option for quick on-the-spot mediation. The judge said she wanted to see if we could agree on a parenting plan today. (One of the temporary motions was my wife demanding 50% time, while I offered 28% time. Since we separated, she has had only 14% time.) We went down to another place in the courthouse where we were assigned a mediator. The mediator was not the passive kind -- she would try to come up with solutions and be very blunt about what she was seeing. She asked us questions about the current parenting schedule and why we were proposing very different ones. This gave me an opportunity to talk about BPDw's parenting problems, which include raging, suicide threats, violence, and so on. It was very important that I make the case that I wasn't trying to criticize her parenting based on mental illness but on specific, documented behaviors that affected the kid. I can't emphasize enough how critical that distinction is.

As you might imagine, BPDw had a lot of difficulty holding it together, particularly when the mediator began sketching out compromise parenting schedules. She had several outbursts; her attorney tried to modulate her; and when she started to melt down, the mediator suggested a break and moved us to separate rooms. At this point, we proposed a slight compromise that gave her 32% time. Her attorney talked her into taking it. We took the deal back to the judge, were sworn in, and it was entered as a judicial order.

So, temporary spousal support and a few smaller issues are still in the judge's hands for her ruling, but I now have a temporary but legal custody order that is highly favorable to me, and we've established a dynamic where BPDw's attorney has to make deals with us and then work to get BPDw on board.

A parenting evaluation is going to be ordered. My attorney commented that it's not likely to go well for her, based on her demonstration that she can't emotionally hold things together even in a brief courtroom and mediation session.

[david]

It a marathon and not a sprint. Sounds like you have a plan and it is working.

[ForeverDad]

Our time in the courtroom was mostly the judge giving what I think is her standard speech to divorcing parents -- primarily about avoiding parental alienation.

She said that we were business partners in the business of raising a child, and that we needed to communicate in a businesslike manner, brief and focused on timely issues.  She also talked about the negative effect on kids hearing one parent disparage the other.

If only my court and lawyers had done that at the beginning.  They studiously avoided her disparagement until our last time in court, some 8 years after we entered the court system.  The magistrate used some form of the word disparagement at least 6 times in her decision.

It was very important that I make the case that I wasn't trying to criticize her parenting based on mental illness but on specific, documented behaviors that affected the kid.  I can't emphasize enough how critical that distinction is.

Yes, the professionals don't want us to Play Doctor.  Unless it's a murder case they usually avoid seeking a diagnostic label if there is not already one that is applicable so it is best to stick with the poor behaviors and poor behavior patterns.

As you might imagine, BPDw had a lot of difficulty holding it together, particularly when the mediator began sketching out compromise parenting schedules... .the mediator suggested a break and moved us to separate rooms.  At this point, we proposed a slight compromise... .

Separate rooms is an excellent idea if being together is too triggering.

Evidently your state allows lawyers to be involved in mediation.  In a comment to others, some states don't so if you can't have support with you and you need to get a second opinion then you can always take a break and call someone from the restroom or outside.

Concessions may happen — courts love settlements and deals — but you do not have to feel stuck or forced to capitulate.  If you have a very unrealistic Ex stonewalling with ridiculous demands in mediation you will likely get better results from a judge's ruling than an Ex's terms/crumbs.

In this case a minor concession was okay, you're still in charge. Be sure you secure for yourself at the earliest point possible, as the reasonably normal and stable parent, both Primary Parent status and Residential Parent for School Purposes.

[flourdust]

It was very important that I make the case that I wasn't trying to criticize her parenting based on mental illness but on specific, documented behaviors that affected the kid.  I can't emphasize enough how critical that distinction is.

Yes, the professionals don't want us to Play Doctor.  Unless it's a murder case they usually avoid seeking a diagnostic label if there is not already one that is applicable so it is best to stick with the poor behaviors and poor behavior patterns.

I think the nuance was a little different from that. I did bring up her diagnoses, but the mediator pushed back. She did not challenge the diagnosis. In fact, she said she was familiar with BPD and talked a bit about her experience with it. She said that BPD is treatable and people with mental illness can be effective parents. I agreed with that, and then clarified that my concern about parenting was not about her diagnosis but about the documented behavior.

Evidently your state allows lawyers to be involved in mediation.  In a comment to others, some states don't so if you can't have support with you and you need to get a second opinion then you can always take a break and call someone from the restroom or outside.

Good advice. This particular form of mediation is unusual, and I don't think it's even offered in every county in my state. They essentially have people on hand for 2 hour mediation sessions to try to resolve issues and then return to the judge with any agreements made. We were allowed to decide if we wanted attorneys present.

In this case a minor concession was okay, you're still in charge. Be sure you secure for yourself at the earliest point possible, as the reasonably normal and stable parent, both Primary Parent status and Residential Parent for School Purposes.

Just FYI, I've seen you give this advice often, and I think you may want to try using more general language. I had never heard of "residential parent for school purposes" until I saw your posts. A little Googling shows that it's a term that is used only in Ohio. No offense to you Buckeyes, but most of us aren't in Ohio.

I don't believe we have anything called "primary parent" status in my state, either. That might be another Ohio-only term.

Here, we have "physical custody" and "legal custody", which can be sole or joint. I've asked for sole physical/joint legal, as has BPDw. This particular judge did speak for a bit on that issue, saying that the terms aren't meaningful, as you can assign any parenting/residential plan you like under those terms. I can have "sole physical custody" while still having a 50/50 parenting plan, for example. She may have been oversimplifying the law, but that was how she explained it to us.