SD13, gender, & bigger communication issues

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

Continuing from https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=337457.0

So DH sent 3 emails to Mom & Stepdad the other night. One was just scheduling, one was "we were surprised you didn't give us a heads up about SD13", and one was yet another issue that had come up (and now that I think about it, it's kind of related).

Nutshell version of issue #3: SD13 went on end of year camping trip w/ class, we assumed there'd be adult supervision, but it ended up that SD13 and 3 boys shared a tent with no adult at all for 3 nights. The evening right before they took off, we did talk w/ Mom & Stepdad about it. At that point what we knew was that tents would be coed, but supervised. It seemed like Mom at least was on the same page with us. In fact, last fall, she had told SD11 she could go to a sleepover, but when she found out that it would be coed with a huge age range (5YO-12YO boy), even with 2 parents there, she told SD11 she couldn't stay the night. We were supportive.

This is also the mom who last spring, after seeing an unhinged video that DH's uBPD sister posted, told DH to his face that she was afraid he would abuse the kids.

So, we thought we were on the same page, and Stepdad said they would email the school to get more info. He said "I'm all about collaboration" and cc'ed us on the email, which read

Hello (Teacher Name),
I am sorry this email is so late in coming. We are all very excited about the trip.
I had some specific questions about the sleeping arrangements. (SD13) tells me that they are co-Ed. I am not opposed to this but definitely would like a little clarification. How many kids and adults per sleeping space? Do you have any concerns about behavior?
Thank you,
(Stepdad)

OK, so when I saw that he "was not opposed to it", I naively thought he was just trying to smooth things out. This is how DH checked in on what was going on:

Hey,
Did you ever receive a response to this email? I was very concerned to hear from (SD13) that she spent three nights in a tent with three male students and no adult supervision. It seems to me that there were some massively negligent assumptions being made on the part of whoever was in charge of organizing that trip.
(DH)

OK. Well. This is where we're at:

Hi (DH),

I didn't receive a response no doubt due to the late request for information.

By "massively negligent assumptions" I guess I don't know what you mean. The teacher do this every year and provided us an agenda and outline of activities. Perhaps they assumed parents will ask more questions?

(SD13), (Mom) and I discussed the sleeping arrangement before she left, and while what occurred was not identical to the picture (SD13) painted, we only assumed you and (kells76) had a similar conversation.

As for (SD13)'s recent interest in the masculine pronouns, we did not fail to notify you of this dynamic out of any negligence or indifference to you but were entirely purposeful in withholding this information. 

We understand that co-parenting is very important but do not feel this is something which relates to coordination of schedule or the general betterment of the girl's lives, rather, this issue falls directly to your relationship with (SD13). It was out of respect for (SD13), and also, for the unique relationship he shares with you and (kells76) that we had no intention to alter or effect it. If (SD13) would have asked us too we might have broached the subject, but as you might assume, we were very proud that he brought it up to you when he was ready. 

Any mention of this issue from us against (SD13)'s wishes would have both foreclosed on the exclusivity of (SD13) and your relationship, and prevented (SD13) from coming to you on his terms. Ultimately, it would have also violated (SD13)'s trust in all parties involved. It is after all, (SD13)'s issue and (SD13)'s right to broach this issue as he sees fit. 

Of course, if something were occurring with either (SD13) or (SD11) that warranted genuine concern, such as, eating disorder, self-harming, drug use and the like, we would definitely include you in the discussion. This was not one of those times.

As it stands, this "issue" does not rise to that state of critical concern, but registers clearly within the bounds of normal developmental experimentation.   

I am sure you were taken back, just as we were, but from all reports (SD13) described a loving and meaningful conversation.

I am sure you both did a fine job listening. (SD13) described the conversation in positive terms and seemed to accept your reservations about his request.

It seems you made your argument clear and he appears to have accepted this.

I hope this clarifies our perspective.

(Stepdad)

[kells76]

Continuing from https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=337457.0

So DH sent 3 emails to Mom & Stepdad the other night. One was just scheduling, one was "we were surprised you didn't give us a heads up about SD13", and one was yet another issue that had come up (and now that I think about it, it's kind of related).

Nutshell version of issue #3: SD13 went on end of year camping trip w/ class, we assumed there'd be adult supervision, but it ended up that SD13 and 3 boys shared a tent with no adult at all for 3 nights. The evening right before they took off, we did talk w/ Mom & Stepdad about it. At that point what we knew was that tents would be coed, but supervised. It seemed like Mom at least was on the same page with us. In fact, last fall, she had told SD11 she could go to a sleepover, but when she found out that it would be coed with a huge age range (5YO-12YO boy), even with 2 parents there, she told SD11 she couldn't stay the night. We were supportive.

This is also the mom who last spring, after seeing an unhinged video that DH's uBPD sister posted, told DH to his face that she was afraid he would abuse the kids.

So, we thought we were on the same page, and Stepdad said they would email the school to get more info. He said "I'm all about collaboration" and cc'ed us on the email, which read

Hello (Teacher Name),
I am sorry this email is so late in coming. We are all very excited about the trip.
I had some specific questions about the sleeping arrangements. (SD13) tells me that they are co-Ed. I am not opposed to this but definitely would like a little clarification. How many kids and adults per sleeping space? Do you have any concerns about behavior?
Thank you,
(Stepdad)

OK, so when I saw that he "was not opposed to it", I naively thought he was just trying to smooth things out. This is how DH checked in on what was going on:

Hey,
Did you ever receive a response to this email? I was very concerned to hear from (SD13) that she spent three nights in a tent with three male students and no adult supervision. It seems to me that there were some massively negligent assumptions being made on the part of whoever was in charge of organizing that trip.
(DH)

OK. Well. This is where we're at:

Hi (DH),

I didn't receive a response no doubt due to the late request for information.

By "massively negligent assumptions" I guess I don't know what you mean. The teacher do this every year and provided us an agenda and outline of activities. Perhaps they assumed parents will ask more questions?

(SD13), (Mom) and I discussed the sleeping arrangement before she left, and while what occurred was not identical to the picture (SD13) painted, we only assumed you and (kells76) had a similar conversation.

As for (SD13)'s recent interest in the masculine pronouns, we did not fail to notify you of this dynamic out of any negligence or indifference to you but were entirely purposeful in withholding this information. 

We understand that co-parenting is very important but do not feel this is something which relates to coordination of schedule or the general betterment of the girl's lives, rather, this issue falls directly to your relationship with (SD13). It was out of respect for (SD13), and also, for the unique relationship he shares with you and (kells76) that we had no intention to alter or effect it. If (SD13) would have asked us too we might have broached the subject, but as you might assume, we were very proud that he brought it up to you when he was ready. 

Any mention of this issue from us against (SD13)'s wishes would have both foreclosed on the exclusivity of (SD13) and your relationship, and prevented (SD13) from coming to you on his terms. Ultimately, it would have also violated (SD13)'s trust in all parties involved. It is after all, (SD13)'s issue and (SD13)'s right to broach this issue as he sees fit. 

Of course, if something were occurring with either (SD13) or (SD11) that warranted genuine concern, such as, eating disorder, self-harming, drug use and the like, we would definitely include you in the discussion. This was not one of those times.

As it stands, this "issue" does not rise to that state of critical concern, but registers clearly within the bounds of normal developmental experimentation.   

I am sure you were taken back, just as we were, but from all reports (SD13) described a loving and meaningful conversation.

I am sure you both did a fine job listening. (SD13) described the conversation in positive terms and seemed to accept your reservations about his request.

It seems you made your argument clear and he appears to have accepted this.

I hope this clarifies our perspective.

(Stepdad)

[kells76]

DH asked me what I thought Stepdad even meant.

I have some thoughts and am interested in what the group thinks as well.

Strategy-wise DH called the kids' C yesterday but she was out. Plan is for her to get in touch w/ DH today. DH & I meet with our own C in a week or two. So take those two steps and then see where to go next.

This is right back to the toxic dysfunctional communication and inverted family structure that we started at.

[kells76]

And I also have to add that these are people who go to Women's Marches, who have called DH abusive, and who have done social media awareness campaigns about sexual exploitation.

[Notwendy]

It doesn't surprise me that BPD mom is inconsistent with her permissions.

This looks like one set of rules at their house, another set of rules at yours.

If your views lean more towards traditional/conservative then I can't help but wonder if our current political divisions are playing a part in why the two of you can't get on the same page. Not taking political sides here or discussing politics but in general- it seems divisions are wider and harder to reconcile. If they are going to women's marches then they are aligned politically with that point of view.

Personally, I don't see a problem with "my house my values", "their house, their values". Not sure she'll get the respect for yours at her home but you can show it. By respect it doesn't mean agreeing to what you don't agree with, its in how you treat people who don't agree with you- but you know that.

As long as you show unconditonal love and not judgement, I think "your household your values" is a way to show boundaries- being who you are despite any pressure to change that. However, you may not be able to influence how she is parented at BPD mom's home.

Personally, I would err on calling her what she wants to be called. To me it seems to be more about acknowledging her autonomy and separate identity than asserting a value, and affirming her right to be called by how she wants to be than what the pronoun is.

[kells76]

Hey Notwendy;

I think my issue with the inconsistency is more that Stepdad sees no problem with a biogirl sleeping unsupervised with 3 middle school boys, while espousing his support for women's safety. And historically calling DH "abusive" while being OK with essentially putting SD13 in an unsafe situation... for whatever reason Stepdad has. I can't understand why he had no problem with an unsupervised middle school sleep situation. Even if it were all bioboys, kids that age -- with hormones raging, at best, and with unnoticed abuses against them, at worst, would be in a huge huge setup for failure and perpetrating abuse.

SD13 let slip to us that there was an "incident" on the last trip and that the teachers seemed "relieved" and surprised that there were no "incidents" this time. The incident last time was a group of kids doing what SD13 described as a "fight club" in a tent; one kid got his jaw broken.

If they are going to women's marches then they are aligned politically with that point of view.

That's just it. They go, and say the right things, and then somehow DH and I are the problem for thinking that, Hey, it might not be a safe situation for 4 middle school kids to sleep unsupervised together. Wherever SD13 is at with who SD13 is and pronouns, I would hope that we'd all be on the same page that SD13 has a female body.

And with all the awareness in the media and society today about how hard it is for people who have been abused to speak up, the fact that "nothing happened" on the trip doesn't mean a lot to me. Maybe "nothing" did and that's great. But if something did, how are we not all on the same page that we never should've set those kids up for that in the first place?

Am I missing something here about what is neglectful, imaginary thinking? I.e. "We're great teachers and we know the kids, we know they're great kids, so nothing will happen on OUR trip" seems like "I'm so wonderful and in tune with the kids that that makes it OK to not have any adult supervision". And "SD13 told Mom and me (Stepdad) about the setup, and we're openminded and support what SD13 wants, so we are cool and great and have no problem with it" as if whatever SD13 "wants to do" makes it OK and safe?

I'm tempted to suggest that DH reply to the email with "Are you speaking for Mom?"

[kells76]

As long as you show unconditonal love and not judgement, I think "your household your values" is a way to show boundaries- being who you are despite any pressure to change that. However, you may not be able to influence how she is parented at BPD mom's home.

Yeah, it's interesting that in a sense SD13 and us are in the same boat -- how do we stick to our values and beliefs no matter how others respond. I respect that SD13 wants that, and I'm definitely working on not saying she/her.

The "our house our rules/Mom's house Mom's rules" thing makes sense until we're at sending the kids on trips without adult supervision for sleeping. Why Mom would lay down the hammer for SD11's sleepover and then not speak up for SD13's trip is beyond me. At what point is this "hey, they're inconsistent, but it's their house/their deal" thing moving over the boundary into actual neglect?

[Notwendy]

That's a tough one- proving neglect. I have a hard time imagining that a school trip would allow this- considering the liability and other possible issues. My kids have done camp trips where there's a whole lot of kids - the whole group-sleeping on the floor of a rec center or camp building in sleeping bags- with counselors supervising of course. But to have  a co-ed sleeping arrangement with just a few kids in a tent unsupervised- I would not allow it and I'm shocked that a school would unless her parents requested she be considered to be a male and placed with the boys?

This is a whole new situation. Some schools have single bathrooms to accommodate this, prevent bullying and any issues that could arise from this. Colleges have to consider this with dorm placement but by then the students are over 18 and that's a different situation. I would think there would need to be parent permission with a 13 year old.

Have you brought this up with the school?

I'd be upset about finding this out too, but I have no idea how to control a BPD mom.

[kells76]

Have you brought this up with the school?

DH is NCP -- in our state it's either full custody or no custody (in terms of legal, educ, health). No relation to parenting time.

Still, under FERPA, I believe he can "inspect and receive" all school, educ, military, health, psych, etc, records.

He wants to bring it up with the school. I think if/when he does we should bracket the boy/girl issue for now and focus on no adult supervision. That's not OK for any sleeping group at that age (re: broken jaw incident).

I'm shocked that a school would unless her parents requested she be considered to be a male and placed with the boys?

I wonder if that request would show up in an official school record. But we're still left with the "no adult supervision" issue.

Side note as I think about where DH & I should go from here, strategy wise:

Anyone familiar with FERPA know if the school is required to contact NCP when records change? Or is onus on NCP to request, but then school must provide records?

SD13 brought up the other day that SD13 had told "the school and doctors" about the desired pronoun change. Mom had gone overboard in telling DH that she was taking SD13 in for immuniz's/booster shots and then updating him verbally about how the shots went. No word about SD13's pronoun conversation w/ docs, which I'm assuming was the same appointment. School office is closed for the next few weeks, AFAIK.

[kells76]

My kids have done camp trips where there's a whole lot of kids - the whole group-sleeping on the floor of a rec center or camp building in sleeping bags- with counselors supervising of course.

Yeah, I did some of those in my day, too -- supervised.

I'm concerned that the school would put out a request for parent volunteers for the trip but then go ahead anyway even when clearly there weren't enough. I'm really surprised they'd do that if a kid got seriously injured the last time. I can't imagine that "fight club" happening with sufficient adult supervision. This all smells like "We can't let the kids down or disappoint them -- the trip HAS to happen!" That sort of abdication of responsibility because it would mean kids are upset with you, the adult, for drawing the line for safety.

Not happy.

[worriedStepmom]

I would be livid at the lack of supervision.

My nephew went on his first Boy Scout sleepover.  They put the boys in a tent and the adults were elsewhere.  It rained, the kids and all their stuff got wet, and by the end of the weekend 2 of them ended up in the hospital with trench foot.  Easily avoided if there had been any adult oversight.  

Even if your 13-year-old were to be considered male by the school, trans kids are at significantly higher risk for sexual assault than cisgender kids.  That must be taken into account when arrangements are made.

ETA - it should be taken into account by both the school AND the parent in charge.  In this case, that was mom and stepdad.

[Notwendy]

Unfortunately I think this is common. My kids are older than this but still recently out of high school and have told me stories: Teachers are afraid to reprimand kids for cheating, give kids a low grade if they deserve it, because the parents come in and complain. They need their jobs. The idea of "helicopter parents" has evolved to "lawn mower parents"- parents who pave the way so there are no obstacles or discomfort.

I think the schools are genuinely afraid of making the parents angry. If the kids come home complaining, then the parents may come in upset. But putting boys and girls in a tent unsupervised?

It comes down to what values and boundaries we help our kids establish. I feel for you having to share this with a BPD mother where you have little control. However, I don't know if this is better or worse than how I grew up. My father behaved ethically. My mother both demonstrated reasonable behavior and also was out of control but they had rules. No boys upstairs in my room, ( I wouldn't dare-) dating curfews, no co-ed sleep overs ( except for large supervised groups) . I had to decide who was the better role model and by 13 I knew it was my father. However, we didn't deal with these types of issues in schools when I was 13.

I still think you have considerable influence as a role model. I was actually drawn to the households of my friends whose families had order and structure- it was something I wanted. I spent a lot of time at friend's homes. Another strong role model was my father's family.  Teens can act out, but they are watching the adults in their lives.

[kells76]

Even if your 13-year-old were to be considered male by the school, trans kids are at significantly higher risk for sexual assault than cisgender kids.  That must be taken into account when arrangements are made.

I know. And:

https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/study-reveals-which-transgender-teens-have-highest-suicide-risk

So going back to the email, Stepdad's position that this is "no big deal, not a concern, not risky, we would tell you if it were" is naive at best, certainly uninformed, and blindly shoving SD13 into dangerous situations while imagining that SD13 is not at risk. I just read an article in the paper that a new study indicated that non-straight bio female teens were 400% more likely to be using drugs/alcohol.

We could talk about chicken and egg and what's correlated vs causative vs indicative, but it's jawdropping that Stepdad can say that this "doesn't warrant genuine concern". I can't believe that lil ol conservative me is the one here who is like, "LOOK AT THE STUDIES ABOUT TRANS KIDS".

[kells76]

Plus, there's already history of Mom & Stepdad NOT telling us about major medical issues.

A few years ago SD13 got a 2nd degree burn over ~2%+ surface area from jumping through fireworks w/ Mom & Stepdad. They were out camping, and Mom let her swim in the lake after that. The only text that DH got was that "SD13 got a little burn". We finally saw her a few days later and it was the size of DH's hand. He was furious. They did not take her to the hospital or even urgent care when on their trip, which was near a city.

I feel like they lost their high ground on "we are good at knowing what to communicate about" a long time ago.

[livednlearned]

I don't know how I would respond to that email. It's a doozy.

Do you suspect that anything you write back is probably being shared with SD13 in one way or another?

Your situation is somewhat different than what I'm used to because there seems to be an assumption that coparenting is possible.

SD13 has one set of parents who seem to give her a lot of responsibility for making potentially life-changing choices, while making it seem that they are being supportive parents.

I guess you could have that dynamic in a nuclear family, too. Where one parent is more liberal than the other, undermining what is agreed to in order to be the favored parent.

What do you wish you could write back and say?

[kells76]

I don't know how I would respond to that email. It's a doozy.

Yes. It's classic Stepdad. Did I ever tell you guys about how he wrote to us saying we couldn't get a pet snake (the kids, especially SD13 who was maybe 10 at the time, wanted one)? He said that because in the magical story he was making up for them (in which they, and especially SD13, play/ed a starring role), the kids rode on mice, and snakes eat mice, that it would be too emotionally traumatic.

I bought the snake "for myself" with "my" money. The kids love it and we've had our sweet python for years.

Do you suspect that anything you write back is probably being shared with SD13 in one way or another?

Perhaps indirectly. I don't think boundaries are big at Mom's. I would suspect that both Mom & Stepdad would deny sharing the verbatim text of emails or whatever, but I think word gets around. Or, at least, a lot of indirect/nonverbal/emotional communication of the "feel" of the email.

Your situation is somewhat different than what I'm used to because there seems to be an assumption that coparenting is possible.

DH still hangs on to that hope. I think he is starting to see the light, because when I suggest things like "Maybe we should try putting less of our energy into explaining ourselves to them (and more into doing what the kids need)", he gets it. I think a lot of the issues had been either (a) managed by having the kids' C involved, or (b) stuffed underground because DH & I didn't "poke" at Mom & Stepdad. I think last spring when Mom said to DH's face that she was afraid he was going to abuse the kids, things really started to decline.

SD13 has one set of parents who seem to give her a lot of responsibility for making potentially life-changing choices, while making it seem that they are being supportive parents.

This is the pattern. These were how it showed up ~5 years ago when SD13 was ~8 years old: "SD13, do you want to go with Dad? Are you sure?" "The kids told me that they only want to stay one night with you, not two." SD13 to DH: "You're not my family"; Mom, sitting there: silence.

Lots of that abdication of responsibility to the kids. I wonder if Mom &/or Stepdad are dysregulated and regressing to the inverted family structure to manage how they feel: i.e., something's going on, so Mom/Stepdad will make a coalition with SD13 and elevate her to the top of the family in terms of decision-making. Something about that structure is familiar and feels under control to Mom so that's where she goes. And Stepdad, too. It's like this covert control of SD13.

What do you wish you could write back and say?

I thought you'd never ask   

The reactive part of me wants to send one link a day to them about the huge risks to transgender kids, specifically bio girls who identify as boys. No commentary, just the link. I know that would not be effective.

I wish I could say something that would open their eyes to how their profound blindness is putting the kids in real danger. I think their blindness is to any action they take (or don't take) that could or does hurt the kids. As soon as someone starts shining any light on it, it's all JADE or "Huh? What? I don't understand". I wish I could say something where they would look at this camping situation, for example, and be like, "I get where you're coming from, you were concerned because of X Y and Z. While we don't see eye to eye on this, I agree with you that X was an issue".

Leaving fantasy land...

Strategically, DH wants to bring up that SD13 should be seeing a C again. I agree with him but actually talked him out of including that in this first email. I suggested that he wait and see their response and not play all his aces at once. I still agree with DH and I think we will need some ideas about how to do some STRONGLY strategic emailing. I do agree with him that a lot of this is just going to be "paper trail" emails vs "at last they will change" emails.

So. I spent most of this thread venting and reacting, so thank you guys for sticking with me. I hope to use this thread (or another one) to start laying out strategic steps. I don't know yet what our goal is but if Mom & Stepdad are (a) minimizing trans issues and risks, (b) flat out explicitly saying "we purposefully did not communicate with you", (c) not seeing the danger of a neglectful unsupervised situation, (d) saying "we call the shots on what we tell you based on our determination", and ... IDK, there's probably an (e) in there, too...

...if that's what they have no qualms of putting on the record, then we're in trouble and need to make some changes. Here's the steps we have so far. It feels like a decision tree, where the outcome at each step determines the next move. I have absolutely no idea what endpoint we're even going for. It kind of feels like at each step we "give some more rope" to Mom and Stepdad and what they do with that is up to them. (Honestly, I couldn't believe we got an explicit written statement of "we purposefully did not tell you something important about the kids")

Step 1a: Meet with kids' C. Progress: she should be in touch w/ DH today about setting up an appointment

Step 1b: Meet with our C. Progress: appointment scheduled for 2 weeks from now.

I suggested to DH that he wait to write back until we meet w/ the kids' C. Not sure if that is good advice or not.

[Notwendy]

I can't believe that lil ol conservative me is the one here who is like, "LOOK AT THE STUDIES ABOUT TRANS KIDS".


Because you love your kids and want them to be safe, loved and secure. It's good your SD ( will go with that for now) has you and your H who love her and are looking out for her safety.

[kells76]

you love your kids and want them to be safe

Yeah. Not interested in using S13's distress as leverage. Either coming out as trans is a big deal or we don't go there. Mom seems to be wanting to play the middle again (we are supportive because we call you he/him, but I think I'll convince you not to take hormones). It was the same with overnights -- for the longest time, "the kids only wanted to spend one night at a time". Such a weird position for a kid to come up with, huh? I suspect Mom "convinced" them to do one because then she could occupy the position of "I'm a great mom, I bend over backwards to have them spend time with you" along with minimizing DH's overnights.

So either we take being trans seriously -- and I mean really seriously, because there are documented risks -- or we don't do secret pronoun changes at the doctor while saying it's not a big deal.

[worriedStepmom]

So either we take being trans seriously -- and I mean really seriously, because there are documented risks -- or we don't do secret pronoun changes at the doctor while saying it's not a big deal.

Yep.  It's good that your plan includes lots of opportunities for documentation.  H may need to pursue increased custody on grounds of neglect.

[livednlearned]

One thing that has worked for me in the past with covert aggression is to take a big step back out of the drama triangle which can destabilize the party pushing hard for conflict.

Because that's what it seems like -- biomom/stepdad are seeing an opportunity to be in a one-up position even if doing so is unhealthy for SD13's wellbeing.

To do that, they need a foe.

I wonder what would happen if you took a full step back (out of communication, not out of finding a way to support SD13's gender identity) and gave them nothing to push against.

As an example, your H would write directly to the school to learn directly what's going on, instead of relying on stepdad to get and distribute information to you.

They also seem to be defining your values for SD13 instead of allowing you to do so directly.

The contempt coming through that email is pretty strong. In my experience, wherever there's contempt there is usually some kind of moral righteousness. It might require a good counselor to help shift the conversation from values about what's right/wrong toward what's safe and supportive.

[kells76]

I wonder what would happen if you took a full step back

That might be where we need to go. DH does want to follow up with this last email sooner rather than later -- likely before we meet with the C.

I wonder if it could be a "paper trail" email, where instead of engaging with the tone, he just gets documented that for the kids' safety he disagrees with unsupervised sleeping on school trips. And maybe also that again for the kids' safety SD13 needs professional guidance and assessment.

And then not reply to whatever insane word salad gets sent back.

Any feedback on the following (for starters):

"Dear (Mom);

It is not safe for the kids to be in unsupervised sleeping arrangements, whether at a sleepover or school function. I do not agree that it is OK for either of the kids to have little to no adult supervision in those circumstances.

Also, it is well documented that trans kids are at risk of dangerous physical and mental health outcomes. I do not agree that it is not an issue of critical concern. (SD13) needs professional involvement and guidance for (SD13)'s safety and support.

Thanks;

(DH)

[kells76]

OK, so, appointment with kids' C is same day as our MC appointment. Which means we have 2 weeks of... not much in person support between now and then. DH doesn't want these topics to just get "forgotten". And it makes sense to have a timely communication to the school (though I think the office is closed).

So maybe ideas on "managing" the stuff that's burbling up from Mom/Stepdad until we can meet w/ professionals & get a more detailed plan?

So far we're at:

Step 0: DH write back to Mom as paper trail
Step 0.5: DH write just to school as paper trail
Step 1: meet with both C's in 2 weeks

[kells76]

DH and I talked, and we're on the same page that (a) coparenting is not important to Mom & Stepdad; (b) ideally SD13 would be getting professional counseling, (c) going back to court would be something Mom would use to put the kids in the middle and emotionally force them to reject DH, and (d) getting off the drama triangle is important.

DH's question is essentially: "I see how getting off the drama triangle would stop Mom using me as the Persecutor. But how do I protect the kids and keep them safe without interacting with Mom?"

Basically, it's still important to try to protect the kids by not putting them in unsafe situations. With the school trip, DH decided that he should go next year -- so, first have the info, then do something protective.

And we know that there will just be times when the kids are with Mom (not at school, etc) and we can't step in and say Hey, I disagree, that's not safe.

So I guess we want to figure out how to communicate to Mom about the known unsafe issues -- to get disagreement on the record. Plus how to not have to just "wait for something bad to happen" in order to get more safety for the kids.

It's tricky because DH reminded me that somehow SD13 got the idea that she was truly "in control" of how counseling went last time, if that makes sense. So if she is not bought in to counselling this time, or has delusions that she is pulling the strings on how it goes, that seems unproductive.

It seems like it could be marginally more productive if just DH & Mom went to (perceptive) coparenting counseling -- so SD13 wasn't the "identified patient" and feeling like she and her choices controlled what the adults did.

IDK. Thoughts on how to simultaneously step off the drama triangle AND get it on the record that the school trip was not safe or ok?