What do I say to the Counselor

[Wilkinson]

Quick Synopsis: I’ve been married for 17 years, with four kids.  Several years ago my uBPDw took a major turn for the worse and it was an emotionally abusive situation where she would trap me in a room and berate me for hours, throw my stuff on the porch, break things, kick me out of the house for days, and so on.  When I finally had the courage to reach out to others for help, she set up marriage counseling with a particular psychologist.  The current counselor I was seeing encouraged me to document her behaviors, factual information of what she did, when she did it.  I presented this documentation to this marriage psychologist my first one on one with him and he said, he doesn’t like to use the term abuse because he feels the other spouse, uses it to not put effort into the relationship.  If there is abuse, there are usually problems in the relationship and if we can fix the problems, the abuse tends to go away.  So he continued to see us together for a while.  He always encouraged me to suffer in silence, but to still do my job and duty as a husband until she would finally notice and come around.  At this point, her crazy behavior had been going on for a year and a half and I really did try that already when I saw him. 

So after I moved out and filed for divorce, my wife started taking our kids to see him for counseling about the divorce.  I never approved it, but she signed the paperwork for him to see the kids.  I asked last month to hear about my kids and he wanted to sit down with me in his office, most likely so he could charge me, and he couldn’t fit me in for a month. 

Interestingly he doesn’t really believe in abuse or that it is a problem born out of problems in the relationship and he also doesn’t believe in parental alienation. Because my wife has been keeping the kids away from me and he doesn’t see a problem with that.

I plan on hearing from my kids, but I don’t know what to say to this guy.  My wife made false allegations against me to DCFS.  I have an appeal trial coming up.  He is testifying against me.  I don’t want to give him ammo for that, but I also want to try and talk sense in this guy.  When I brought up the fact that my wife kept me from seeing the kids at all for 80 days, he brought up my DCFS investigation and ruling and I told him that DCFS said that they don’t have any orders to prevent me from seeing my kids.  I was going to bring in the page from the report that lays that out.  He just took my wife’s word that DCFS said I couldn’t see my kids.  My wife is poisoning my kids against me through the common methods mentioned by Craig Childress, but he doesn’t to take stock in those.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

[worriedStepmom]

Geez, I didn't realize it was the same counselor who was your marriage counselor.  That is...not right ... and I hope that you can convince a court to pick a different therapist for them.  One without a giant flashing conflict of interest.

For this meeting, I would focus on listening.  What are the children saying?  What are their worries?  Where are they struggling? What is going well for them?  How are they processing the divorce? What suggestions does he have for you to help them through this transition time?  What suggestions has he made to your ex in terms of her parenting to help them?

If he doesn't believe in abuse or parental alienation, then it's unlikely that there's anything you can say to change his perception of what's going on.  The session can instead be valuable to get insight into what he's doing with the kids and to show that your goal isn't to score points against your wife - it's to be the best parent your kids need.

Write down everything he says.  I'm guessing you are going to get some proof that he's biased. 

[GaGrl]

Yes...major conflict of interest here.I

This is a situation you might need to strategize with your lawyer.

[Wilkinson]

Yes...major conflict of interest here.I

This is a situation you might need to strategize with your lawyer.

Yeah my lawyer and I are currently strategizing on that.

[Grady]

I agree there is definitely a conflict of interest.  I'm glad you are working with your lawyer to come up with ways to deal with this. It sounds like you have a definite case to have him replaced due to the conflict of interest and that he never got your permission.   

I also don't believe you should try to convince the counselor of anything and should focus on finding out about your children to be the best father you can.  This counselor will never be your advocate.  I have never heard of a counselor who doesn't believe in abuse.  They are trained to report it.  He has a legal obligation or could risk losing his license. 

It is crazy how these BPD can manipulate and con people trained in mental health.  My H's exBPD is currently using a social worker (from the safe house she lied her way into) to letting her stay in the social worker's basement some days and help take care of my SS for free so BPD can go to her new job.  I actually think the counseling BPD received at the safe house helped teach her more about victims so she could play her role more effectively. 

[kells76]

Wilkinson, this is gutwrenching stuff.

I remember when the kids' mom and stepdad insisted on "supporting" SD13 (then SD6 or 7, I think) as she "told us how she felt". They sat in our living room as SD6 said to DH's face "you're not my family". I still feel the toxicity as I remember it. It's so hurtful and twisting to a child to be manipulated into "genuinely feeling" some way about a parent... that's actually how the other parent feels.

Do you have a counselor of your own? I ask for three reasons.

One, you are in the hardest of the hard times. You need and deserve as much support as you can get.

Two, this allows your lawyer to be ONLY your lawyer -- not your therapist. LnL has commented on this before. It frees up each professional to do what they do best as they advocate for you.

Three, this is actually strategic. A big issue right now is how your W has pulled this other T in as a "flying monkey", aligning with "her and the kids" against you. I would highly recommend "game-planning" with YOUR counselor about how to engage with this other T when you interact with him. Your counselor will know how T's think and view things, and can help you strategize how to interact with this guy in ways that put him in a "double bind" and "upset the narrative".

You know your W is pitching a MAJOR narrative about you to this other T: "Wilkinson is emotionally abusive, the kids don't want to be with Wilkinson, he's so selfish, he always thinks about himself first, blah, blah, blah". This was the narrative about DH from Mom and Stepdad.

There are ways to DO (versus say) things that will put people in a classic "double bind". I.e., Mom has been all about "listening to the kids' voices... why don't you just listen to what they express". This worked as long as the kids were saying what Mom wanted to hear, plus Mom banked on DH "fighting" when the kids wanted to do what Mom wanted. There were times when DH was able to say "Sure, SD13, you can do X... that sounds really important to you". Built some trust with SD13. Later, SD13 would say things she wanted to do that weren't what Mom wanted. This placed Mom in a double bind: "Uh oh, I've said all along that I'm the only one who listens to the kids... but now they're saying things I don't want to hear. La la la it's not real"

Strategize with your counselor about ways to "present" and interact with this other T that are genuine, but counteract the narrative. Make the T put himself in an armlock, as it were.

[Wilkinson]

Do you have a counselor of your own?

I do, thanks

Your counselor will know how T's think and view things, and can help you strategize how to interact with this guy in ways that put him in a "double bind" and "upset the narrative".

Can you explain this a little more for me?  I'm not sure I quite understand.

[kells76]

Quote from: kells76 on February 05, 2020, 10:36:33 AM
Your counselor will know how T's think and view things, and can help you strategize how to interact with this guy in ways that put him in a "double bind" and "upset the narrative".
Can you explain this a little more for me?  I'm not sure I quite understand.

OK, so, we all have the impulse to want to explain things to people who don't get it. If only they'd see the truth, things would go differently, is the hope.

The T that your W is taking the kids to "doesn't get it" about you and the situation. That's for sure.

I would be tempted to want to "prove" to him that he's got it all backwards -- that's a normal thing to want to do.

I presented this documentation to this marriage psychologist

I don’t want to give him ammo for that, but I also want to try and talk sense in this guy.  When I brought up the fact that my wife kept me from seeing the kids

You've tried this strategy before -- maybe if you just tell him the facts, the documents, the sensible stuff, he'll come around. That doesn't seem to be happening.

So, what about trying something where the very way you even interact with him undermines his entrenched position? Not necessarily the words you say or the facts you bring, but the whole structure of your interactions is "not who W says Wilkinson is".

This is where in terms of specifics I would maybe bring this idea to your T and say OK, this other T is pretty committed to the narrative about me from my W. I still have to interact with this guy, though. Help me with not just "the right words to say" but WAYS of interacting that will communicate that I'm not that guy.

For example, imagine a kid saying to a parent "you're so selfish, you always get what you want, we always have to do what you want to do". A "presenting the facts" approach would be the parent saying "That's actually not true. You asked to go to the park yesterday, and I took you, instead of us going to my activity. You asked for dessert today, and I got it for you. I have it all recorded" (or whatever).

On the surface, it seems like the conflict is about "the facts". If only the kid would just "be reminded" of the facts, then they will say "Oh, phew, that's right, I forgot the facts that I actually get what I want a lot, and I heard the recording, and now I know what's true".

Actually, the conflict is about something deeper. That is why when we present people like this with "the facts" and "the documents", it seems like they're totally impervious. All the reality just rolls off of them and doesn't stick.

It can take a jiu jitsu approach of moving into the assertion in order to deflate it.

Back to the scenario: kid complains about parent's selfishness. Parent: "Oh no, that would be awful. Tell me more about times when you felt like that was happening".

This is getting more to the heart of the conflict, while keeping one's own integrity. The parent isn't saying "You're right, I always get what I want, I'm awful, I'm so sorry" to diffuse it. That's just appeasment which does not work. The parent is moving towards the assertion without saying who is right. Note the bold words -- it would be awful... you felt that way...

They're not getting into a conflict about "the facts". The parent is taking a posture that undermines the kid's assertion. Kid: you always get what you want, you're awful. Parent: (undermines assertion by taking an interest in the kid's feelings).

So, maybe talk through this idea with your T, and you guys can come up with specific stances and moves to make when you have to interact with the other T.

Is that helping a little? Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.

[Wilkinson]

OK, thanks, that makes a lot of sense now.

[dt9000]

I wouldn't waste my time trying to talk sense into the other T. It seems they have their mind made up and have bought into your W's distortion campaign hook, line and sinker. Any discussion you have with the T will be viewed through the filter your BPD installed.

It is crazy how BPD can manipulate and con people trained in mental health. 

BPD's are masters at recruiting flying monkeys to surround themselves with. What amazes me is how easily some in the mental health community can be manipulated.

dt9000

[kells76]

I wouldn't waste my time trying to talk sense into the other T.

Just to make sure I'm tracking with you, Wilkinson -- you have to go back to this other T for a discussion? Is that correct?

dt9000's point stands; if it's "optional" to go back then maybe see if your L thinks it's worth it. Might be a strategic reason, might not.

If it's not "optional", then yes, spend your time with that other T not trying to "talk sense" into him, but taking a really specific different approach to undermine the narrative.

[livednlearned]

Do both parents have to give consent for child therapy where you live?

Is your L recommending a custody evaluation?

[Wilkinson]

Do both parents have to give consent for child therapy where you live?

Is your L recommending a custody evaluation?

I don't know about both consenting.  I did ask for a copy of the consent forms and it was just my wife's signature.  We currently have a GAL.  I don't HAVE to see the T, I did call him up to ask how things are going with my children.  It was just bothering me to know they've been in counseling and I don't know what's going on.  After hearing everyone's good points, I plan on spending my time listening about what he has to say about my kids and do as little talking as I can.  I did let my lawyer know I was going back to see him.

I have expressed to our GAL that I did not like the fact that this T was seeing my kids after seeing my wife and me.  Before I got to mention that, he did bring up the fact HE thought it was a conflict.