Ultimatum that I move or she will Part 2

[Enabler]

This is a continuation of a previous thread: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=342693.0

I agree FF.

W sent a very very loaded email on Friday which was layered in multiple threats. In essence what it says is, if you don’t move out, I will (restating her boundary), if I feel overwhelmed (undertones of “if I have to move out I will feel overwhelmed”) I will hand the reins over to my lawyer. I haven’t responded yet and giving my response serious consideration.

Incidentally I found out that her BFF (since 2015) has just kicked her husband out again, she kicked him out in 2016 as well. W idealises this woman.

My concerns are that if I move out divorce doesn’t progress. As much as I do t want a divorce, I also don’t want to be left not being able to move on, but a new property and start building time with the kids. There is no incentive to push forwards with the sale of the home, financials etc etc if she’s in the big house on her own with OM working his way into the family. She gets her cake and eats it. I would then have to be the aggressor on the divorce. In karpman terms I’m trying to stay neutral (I’m not putting roadblocks in her way other than adhere to the process) and she tries to push me towards rescuer or perpetrator.

I plan to suggest alternative solutions such as nesting. Either way she has to get this past the children...  and they will not go without a fight.

Enabler

[babyducks]

Enabler doesn't want his marriage to end...that's the answer.  Enabler has indicated that his values prevent him from taking steps to end something he promised to steward for the rest of his life.

Seems like a significant reason to me ….

 Enabler's vows and values are not the only thing of significance in this complex picture.

the amount of stress and conflict the family is living with and under is significant.

the potential for long term harm and damage to everyone in the family environment is significant.

the potential for something to flash over into a catastrophic event is significant and appears to be growing albeit ever so slowly.

all these significant things have to be weighed together and against each other depending on what is currently taking place inside the family.   things might change daily.

whatever version of the Western Christian Marriage Vows that Enabler used, whether the traditional 'have and hold' or something different, the stewardship and care taking implied means considering everyone's well being equally.  and not putting one persons thoughts and feelings ahead of the others.

Why not stop trying to read her mind - and just make the offer...

there is nothing to say what the offer might be, or not be.    I would encourage Enabler to consider an offer...  one that he feels comfortable with and represents his interests.   contemplating an offer might help modify the  resistance and rigidity in the thought process.     there is nothing that says this offer has to be permanent.    it could be phrased as for the next 30 days I will do A,  I will do B,  I will not do X.   I will not do Y.     

it very much appears to me to let this percolate to it's natural conclusion is not in Enablers favor.

I plan to suggest alternative solutions such as nesting. Either way she has to get this past the children...  and they will not go without a fight.

I'm not sure I understand this Enabler.    Can you explain this a little more?  Nesting?   how do you envision that working?    I'm particularly confused by the 'get this by the children' thought.    Can you say more about that?   Are you saying the children's reaction will be the deciding factor in what happens or doesn't happen?    that the amount of resistance they have will determine which way things go?

[GaGrl]

Enabler, I'm not sure why this is being made more difficult than it needs to be.

She presented the ultimatum of "move out or I will" (thinking you will move into a smaller and inadequate house that won't fit your future plans).

You are not ready to make that move (Although you know the current house will need to be sold).

She has adequate funds to do what she wants to do.

So let her.

Stay where you are, let her move out, and play out the settlement from there.

It's time.

[Cat Familiar]

I like the simplicity of GaGrl's plan. She wants to move, then let her. It won't disrupt the children's lives and they can continue to live in the house they're accustomed to. Enabler will have to make plans for an au pair or reconciling with his mother. EnablerW can have her love nest with the OM. And if she chooses something she can't afford, then she will reap the consequences and have to move to something more modest.

Regarding what Ducks mentioned, it's a good point about stewardship. Clinging to the marriage vows regardless of the reality, seems like placing that promise above the welfare of the entire family. Sometimes promises have to be renegotiated.

[Fian]

Looking at the posting guidelines, I was surprised that there was no prohibition on advocating a person should stay or leave a relationship.  Personally, I wouldn't want that responsibility.

[Notwendy]

I don't think anyone is telling Enabler to stay or leave the relationship. The issue seems to be that his wife has issued an ultimatum, to leave the house or she will.

Enabler doesn't want a divorce and he doesn't want to leave the house- but his wife is making decisions otherwise. On his part, his reply would be that he's staying. It's up to her to decide what she's going to do.

I think people's suggestions are about dealing with this with minimal drama for the children, but it's ultimately Enabler's decision. If she wants to move out though, I don't know how it is possible to legally restrain her.

[Enabler]

Ducks, my kids are not backwards in coming forwards. All 3 will have an opinion about this and create the mother of all nuclear fallouts.

I’m mulling, you all make great points.

Re the marriage, I’m not clinging on, my vows were a commitment to do my bit in the relationship... it was never a vow to ensure she kept her side of the agreement. My vows don’t require me to try and force her to stay in it.

Standing up for my access rights and not yielding to the threatening undertones do not compromise my commitment to marriage. It’s making sure the ball rolls down hill in an orderly way. 

There are a few undertones that need to be directly confronted in my response.

- moving out
- entitlement to ‘take kids’
- threats of lawyers implying that I am causing her to be overwhelmed
- cost of lawyers
- that she needs to move out for children’s safety
- suggestion that I am holding up the process
- telling them kids what is happening and why

[babyducks]

The mother of all nuclear fallout sounds pretty horrible and like something you want to avoid.

Is that how you are thinking about this?

[Enabler]

My children are entitled to their own opinion and entitled to express that opinion... especially when someone is attempting to groundlessly express ‘what’s best for them’. I don’t want or not want this... it just is. It’s yet another natural consequence of my W’s fantasy colliding with her reality. It’s simply not true that I am, nor ever was a danger to our children.

[formflier]

I like the simplicity of GaGrl's plan. She wants to move, then let her.

Exactly!

FF

[empath]

Enabler, I don't think you need to go into a long response to her ultimatum. You don't want to move out of the house, and you expect to have significant parenting time with the kids. Enabler w can do what she wants with that. I think a BIFF response would be called for (Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm).

The underlying principle is that she needs to take responsibility for her actions and words.

Ignore the "undertones" and underlying drama. Be brief in your response.

[Skip]

One question that was asked before you went to this next layer of third party help - will you take the advice and direction of the expert.

I'm massively conflicted between

1. doing what might be generally seen as 'the right thing to do' i.e. move out, don't force the kids into an upheaval situation, or,

2. call the BS card.

The therapist is saying there needs to be boundaries (physical or rules based) between the two of you for the kids.

Your wife is saying she wants physical boundaries.

What is your (straight forward, above the drama) response?

Don't latch onto drama. She made an offer - you can make a counter offer. It could be as simple as you both move out and put the house up for sale - and let the therapist explain to her that she is getting what she asked for.

Just a reminder - you said these were your preferred terms...

Assuming I can save £20k a year, and there's 800k capital, give or take if we split the capital 62.50/37.50 i.e. she gets 500k and I get 300k we could in theory buy similar properties (which surpass 'needs') and I could save sufficient money in the time to pay off any debt I might have to get to afford the shortfall. I was illustrating this point based on us buying identical houses next door to each other. At some point in the future, it's reasonable for us both to be in the same financial position... past that point other things can happen, however the children will in effect be responsible for themselves at that point. This also makes the income element fall into line.

This would be my backstop with respect to access. She is not keen on a child order. I would like to protect my bare minimum access

Every other weekend starting Friday evening at 18:30 to 20:00 Sunday evening.

One night a week 18:00-20:00, dinner at mine

One overnight stay every other week midweek (to be confirmed with work) - Monday

2 consecutive weeks Summer holiday - fixed 2 weeks every year (first 2 weeks of the summer holidays probably)...

[babyducks]

It’s making sure the ball rolls down hill in an orderly way. 

I would concur with the simplicity idea that's been suggested.     a pwBPD (or any one with a mental health issue) will overload if the situation becomes too complex and too emotionally complex.    if you want your message to be heard keep it simple.

I would also suggest a more proactive approach to making sure the balls roll down the hill in an orderly way.    To misquote 'having a plan saves you from two pests; worry and indecision, you may not follow it exactly but it's important to have one'.

having a plan to follow can mitigate the risks you are exposed too... financial and other wise.   plan to  protect the children from being exposed to 'nuclear fall out' or an upheaval situation.   allow the children to express their emotions and opinions in an emotionally safe environment.

[Enabler]

First draft -

EnablerW

Thanks for your email, I have taken time to reflect on the serious points below, consider options and gather my thoughts before responding. 

I have been working my way through the information requests, however, I have been distracted by the recent change of tack with regards to cohabitation. As I am sure you’ll appreciate this has taken up a lot of my mental capacity considering options. << < few financial info details >> >>   

I’m sorry that you feel overwhelmed by the divorce process. There are a lot of choices and decisions to be made, I hope that you can see that I have been very transparent so as to give you the clearest view possible to make those decisions. I understand that you may find it difficult to come to me to seek answers to questions & guidance, however, I will continue to be here if you need or want my input. I have done my own extensive research in an attempt to understand the options available to me. The impression I have gleaned from others who have been through this process is that the introduction of lawyers typically doesn’t change the outcome, merely reduces the final pot available to start new lives with. If you choose to go down this route, I would hope you’d exhausted all other options, and, I would insist that each of our legal costs be deducted from our own side of the divorce settlement.

It feels like we’re in the final furlongs of the divorce process you have chosen. If you feel you need to change your living arrangements as you have stated is your intention then that’s completely your prerogative. As stated before in my email 20/01/2020 “the number of nights per week you envisage having the girls -  Base case is 1-2 nights a week but I would like to work towards a plan to have them 2-3 or more as circumstances/work permits.” My intention is to maximise parenting time with the girls. A choice by you to move out would clearly hasten the need to find solutions to the wrap around care issues, and move directly to a 50/50 parenting schedule. I have given this some thought already. Another option available to us is ‘nesting’ where the children stay permanently at home and we both rotate on a weekly basis to ‘watch the nest’. This option could work well, and may if we choose, be cost effective with us living with friends or family in the ‘off nest’ weeks (other more costly options are available). We can clearly dovetail the solution to periods where we are on holiday and come up with a parenting schedule for the coming months. Although it is common for people to move out, it is also becoming more and more common to find alternative solutions as it’s acknowledged that both parents have an integral role in raising children. I have never wanted to be a ‘Disney Dad’. This solution will also give you an opportunity to refresh and gather your thoughts about the choices you have ahead of you without the responsibilities of parenting.

Whatever option you choose, it would seem an obvious time to sit down with the girls and explain what is happening and the eventual aims of the process we’re going through. I’ve always been an advocate of being truthful, especially with the girls where preservation of our integrity is paramount.
Best

Enabler

[Skip]

Last time you showed her your thoughts she didn't react well. Do you think it makes sense to share this with the therapist for the next session.

You are deep in this and can't really see that there are a lot of triggers in that copy and that communication is so broken down between the two of you that if either of you offered the other a gold  ingot, there would be suspicion and criticism.

She said she wanted physical boundaries and suggested one of you move out. With help from  the therapist, this could be positioned as "I agree". The fastest and most flexible way we can do this is to "nest in place".

Now, with that said, I would contact your lawyer before you nest in place to be sure you have safeguards in place and don't get locked out and served an ex parte retraining order served on the first week you are out of the nest.

[formflier]

  With help from  the therapist, this could be positioned as "I agree". 

Enabler,

As you know, I'm often at odds with some of the advice given on here.

Not this time.  There is a long history of long, detailed and triggering emails.  Please don't hear criticism of those, there is a time to communicate in detail and "fully". 

I'm comfortable that you have shared the full breadth of your thoughts.

Going forward.  Succint.

"I agree" is a wonderful and fully detailed response.

Another appropriate conversation for in session with T are details of a nesting agreement to be blessed by your L (let her worry about hers).

If she again wants you to move out "first" I do think it would be appropriate to ask for help from the T to communicate the following.

1.  I don't want a divorce and I also realize I can't stop a divorce.
2.  My goal is to facilitate being the best coparent possible so our children have maximum stability. 

If pressed, I think it's fine to flip the question.  Why would I take action to facilitate something I don't want?  Wouldn't it be wiser that the person wanting to leave the marriage...leave the home initially?

Bottom line.  She has offered to move out.  Let her.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

The point I guess I was trying to make is 'fine, move out, but we move to 50/50 custody, the kids are not 100% associated with this decision'.

[Enabler]

Also, T doesn't want to see us until we have separated... ironically the T was supposed to help us decide how to tell the kids. Whatever the option that's taken, we will have to tell the kids, and we still don't have anything in place re framework to do that.

[GaGrl]

You can say "I agree, and here are the 50-50 goals I'll be working toward" MUCH, MUCH more succinctly than your draft email.

Your email wanders all around the thoughts and options you've considered to get to the point of your position.

Let me be clear -- SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS. To her, your email will read, "Blah, blah, blah...nesting...blah, blah...50-50."

You are in divorce settlement negotiations now. Treat it as such.

[formflier]

Also, T doesn't want to see us until we have separated... ironically the T was supposed to help us decide how to tell the kids. Whatever the option that's taken, we will have to tell the kids, and we still don't have anything in place re framework to do that.

OK..interesting.  What was her explanation for not working on what to tell the kids? 

If you don't have one, schedule an appointment. 

People can "want" all kinds of things, but if you hired her to help you figure out what to tell the kids...then ask her to help you do that.

If she declines...ask lots of questions and listen carefully.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

T was very specific, she was there to help with co-parenting. When I asked her at the end about what to tell the children she said, whatever YOU decide, YOU own that choice and have to communicate that truthfully to the children. This is YOUR decision.

Being too succinct (which I have done in the past) is interpreted as 'telling' or 'controlling' by my W. Not picking one of the 2 options that she'd provided will come across to her as controlling without explanation. However reasonable the suggestion may be, it's not what she wants... she no doubt hasn't envisaged a scenario where she is not somewhere 'most' of the time with the kids.

Enabler 

[Skip]

Let me be clear -- SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS. To her, your email will read, "Blah, blah, blah...nesting...blah, blah...50-50." You are in divorce settlement negotiations now. Treat it as such.

This is really clear, Enabler. You have to read the red signals here.

If the T said don't come back until you are separated, that is a very significant statement about the T read of both your actions - the T sees this as a high conflict situation.

The price you will pay for this "resistance" is going to be in custody and visitation... the more "high conflict" the less time you will get.

Enabler, you have to get serious about this or you are going to get run over by family court and spit into a culvert.

Call your lawyer and get some face time on what you needed to get temporary or interim orders in place. Temporary means effective until you make a final settlement. You need a temporary financial agreement and you want temporary child care plan to file with the court.

Don't wing this.

Where do things stand with mediation?

Being too succinct (which I have done in the past) is interpreted as 'telling' or 'controlling' by my W. Not picking one of the 2 options that she'd provided will come across to her as controlling without explanation.

Communication has broken down. This is why you have mediators and, if needed, lawyers.

Is mediation route over?

[empath]

Giving a succinct answer to the options that she presented isn't controlling. You could just state your choice about what you want to do (not move out) and your intentions about the custody arrangements.

When my h decided to move out, I sensed that he was completely overwhelmed and not thinking very clearly. I went along with his decisions at the moment because I knew that any attempts to sort it all out in that moment were not going to be fruitful and would likely cause more issues in the long run.

Talk with your lawyer asap! You need custody and financial agreements for your own protection if she intends to move out.

[Enabler]

the email went as was, I wanted to send it before I got home.

[Enabler]

Mediation is still good at this point. There’s no good reason to write off the mediation process at this point.

[Skip]

Mediation is still good at this point. There’s no good reason to write off the mediation process at this point.

Then why not go there to work out interim orders?

[GaGrl]

Yes, additional comment to FF's...her pattern seems to be "stuck in a rut...confusion...stay in the rut...more confusion...rut...confusion. ..rut...rut...OMG, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!"

You don't need to respond to her panic. As Skip points out, you haven't put an offer into mediation yet, and she won't put anything out there. I don't see her accepting anything that comes out of mediation. I think she's ready to bring in a lawyer/solicitor and force your hand.

[formflier]

OMG, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!"
 

Exactly...and I could see that happening "at the end" of a divorce process and wouldn't it be easier if the temp orders were such that you could "just" turn those into permanent ones.

That would seem to be the least path of resistance.

Best,

FF

[Cat Familiar]

This Thread has reached its maximum length and is now locked. The conversation continues here: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=342882.0