The message blew our children’s world into a million pieces Part 3

[VIDEO: "What is parental alienation?"]

This is a continuation of a previous thread: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=344940.0

My original comments in bold, her response following.

Enabler expressed a desire to minimise the number of exchanges/transfers for the Children  on the grounds that based on the research he has seen and gathered, some Children experience distress and anxiety during a changeover, and he wishes to minimise further trauma. Enabler was not keen on the midweek sleepover on this basis, and also envisaged this being challenging to facilitate if and when he is required to return to his London office. EnablerW acknowledges that Enabler expressed this viewpoint. As previously communicated EnablerW of course also wants to minimise the disruption and distress for the children, and she believes that being away from either parent for too long would cause more distress and anxiety than the handovers themselves. EnablerW communicated to Enabler that, as the children are used to seeing both parents on a daily basis, she believes a week is too long for them to not see the other parent and that a midweek overnight stay should be the minimum. EnablerW believes that it is possible for her and Enabler to make the handovers as calm and smooth as possible by good planning, good communication, and by being amicable and polite with each other.

Enabler expressed a desire to have a clear concise and consistent parenting plan with as few variables as possible, not only for the benefit of maintaining boundaries between Enabler and EnablerW responsibilities but so the Children can feel settled in each home without continually having to adjust to the different expectations in each property. EnablerW acknowledges Enablers wishes to have a consistent childcare structure/schedule in place so everybody knows where they are. EnablerW has also expressed to Enabler her agreement on this but stating that there must be reasonable flexibility due to the nature of children, pointing out that children's school/clubs/social schedules and wishes are ever changing. As reasonable, sensible adults they will need to be respectful of both the childcare schedule and the children's changing needs and will need to communicate appropriately with each other on these matters. With regards to the expectations, boundaries and rules for the children, EnablerW agrees it is sensible to discuss this and to attempt to align their approach so that there is consistency for the children in both homes on things like screen times, bed times etc. EnablerW agrees that it would be difficult and confusing for the children if each home has different rules. EnablerW would like to suggest that if they find this difficult to agree on, they could discuss this in mediation or with the help of professional family counsellor.

I think she has misinterpreted my desire for boundaries here. I think she believes I'm referring to the children rather than around my ability to parent. As much as I have to respect her desire for autonomy, she also has to respect mine. The more I think about it, the less I see co-parenting as viable in the short run and parallel parenting being more optimal on that front.

It was agreed that both EnablerW and Enabler were amenable to the idea of being able to take the children out for a walk or bike ride when it is not ‘their time’, on the proviso that all offers are agreed with the responsible parent before anything is suggested to the children so as not to disrupt any plans they may have. EnablerW agrees that ideally such ideas are discussed between the parents in advance without the children being involved, but they should also take into account the children’s wishes. The legal take on this is that it needs to be “child led” ie when a child expresses a desire to spend time with the other parent in this way, that should be permitted.  In addition, it is common for indirect contact eg by phone or social media messaging to be permitted when the child is with the other parent.  Again, this should be child led.  A child should not be prevented from speaking to the other parent if they wish to do so.

Not to sure about this legal reference about "the legal take" being 'child-led'. I full appreciate that our children should have open access to the other parent (assuming there is no attempt to PA) and was not suggesting I would want to prevent that. I think this sets up the issue that Kells highlighted when suggesting "listening to feedback" being optimal. She will soon erode the my time/your time boundary.

“If Enabler is working, EnablerW will be responsible for the children during the daytime and will be able to take them out and have them at her house. On these days, EnablerW would pick up and return the children to Enabler at times pre-arranged with him.” I do not agree that you (EnablerW) ‘have responsibility’ during the time I am working at home, however, I understand that there may be more preferable things for the children to enjoy whilst I am working (with children are under my care), so I am willing with prior communication and agreement from the children, that EnablerW can take the children away from my care at times during that week. EnablerW has stated to Enabler that both parents always have full parental responsibility regardless of where the children are and what they are doing. As discussed following this email, EnablerW has communicated that she would like to have the children under her care during the daytimes when Enabler is working and it is supposed to be his childcare week. She does not believe this should be dependent on Enablers agreement at the time but believes this should be a set arrangement. EnablerW stated that she has specifically chosen a job that enables her to care for their children before and after school, and during the school holidays, and does not want the children to be cared for by a third party instead of her. She does not believe it is in the children’s best interests for them to be with a parent who is working (even if it is from home) as opposed to a parent who is not working and is fully available to meet all their needs at all times and who is wishing to spend time with them. With regards to this summer holidays, this equates to just under half a week, so on this occasion EnablerW will concede to Enablers wishes to have them staying with him for that time as long as he, as promised, is reasonable in discussing the daytime arrangements and gives the girls and Enablers priority to see each other and does not influence their choice over this . For the future, Enabler would like to propose that if one person is working or otherwise unavailable to take care of the children themselves, the other parent will have first option to provide the care. EnablerW would also like an agreement in the future that states she will have the children staying with her and in her care on the weeks that Enabler is not taking holiday. If necessary, this can be discussed in mediation later. EnablerW states that this will not prevent grandparents from having time with the grandchildren and is supportive of the children’s relationships with the wider family. Grandparents are welcome to propose time with the children and this can be discussed between EnablerW and Enabler if the children are in the other parent’s care.  

“The aim will be to continue with a roughly 50/50 split with the children with regards to overnight stays whilst both parents are in XYZville.” Nothing was discussed about the agreement being dependant on both parents being located in Witley. As clarified verbally, EnablerW was referring here to when either parent is on holiday from work but is not away from home. The idea being that the children will still be able to see the other parent mid-week even when the other parent isn’t working.

All thoughts and advice greatly appreciated. I am speaking to a social worker friend this afternoon.

Enabler

[Enabler]

This is a continuation of a previous thread: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=344940.0

My original comments in bold, her response following.

Enabler expressed a desire to minimise the number of exchanges/transfers for the Children  on the grounds that based on the research he has seen and gathered, some Children experience distress and anxiety during a changeover, and he wishes to minimise further trauma. Enabler was not keen on the midweek sleepover on this basis, and also envisaged this being challenging to facilitate if and when he is required to return to his London office. EnablerW acknowledges that Enabler expressed this viewpoint. As previously communicated EnablerW of course also wants to minimise the disruption and distress for the children, and she believes that being away from either parent for too long would cause more distress and anxiety than the handovers themselves. EnablerW communicated to Enabler that, as the children are used to seeing both parents on a daily basis, she believes a week is too long for them to not see the other parent and that a midweek overnight stay should be the minimum. EnablerW believes that it is possible for her and Enabler to make the handovers as calm and smooth as possible by good planning, good communication, and by being amicable and polite with each other.

Enabler expressed a desire to have a clear concise and consistent parenting plan with as few variables as possible, not only for the benefit of maintaining boundaries between Enabler and EnablerW responsibilities but so the Children can feel settled in each home without continually having to adjust to the different expectations in each property. EnablerW acknowledges Enablers wishes to have a consistent childcare structure/schedule in place so everybody knows where they are. EnablerW has also expressed to Enabler her agreement on this but stating that there must be reasonable flexibility due to the nature of children, pointing out that children's school/clubs/social schedules and wishes are ever changing. As reasonable, sensible adults they will need to be respectful of both the childcare schedule and the children's changing needs and will need to communicate appropriately with each other on these matters. With regards to the expectations, boundaries and rules for the children, EnablerW agrees it is sensible to discuss this and to attempt to align their approach so that there is consistency for the children in both homes on things like screen times, bed times etc. EnablerW agrees that it would be difficult and confusing for the children if each home has different rules. EnablerW would like to suggest that if they find this difficult to agree on, they could discuss this in mediation or with the help of professional family counsellor.

I think she has misinterpreted my desire for boundaries here. I think she believes I'm referring to the children rather than around my ability to parent. As much as I have to respect her desire for autonomy, she also has to respect mine. The more I think about it, the less I see co-parenting as viable in the short run and parallel parenting being more optimal on that front.

It was agreed that both EnablerW and Enabler were amenable to the idea of being able to take the children out for a walk or bike ride when it is not ‘their time’, on the proviso that all offers are agreed with the responsible parent before anything is suggested to the children so as not to disrupt any plans they may have. EnablerW agrees that ideally such ideas are discussed between the parents in advance without the children being involved, but they should also take into account the children’s wishes. The legal take on this is that it needs to be “child led” ie when a child expresses a desire to spend time with the other parent in this way, that should be permitted.  In addition, it is common for indirect contact eg by phone or social media messaging to be permitted when the child is with the other parent.  Again, this should be child led.  A child should not be prevented from speaking to the other parent if they wish to do so.

Not to sure about this legal reference about "the legal take" being 'child-led'. I full appreciate that our children should have open access to the other parent (assuming there is no attempt to PA) and was not suggesting I would want to prevent that. I think this sets up the issue that Kells highlighted when suggesting "listening to feedback" being optimal. She will soon erode the my time/your time boundary.

“If Enabler is working, EnablerW will be responsible for the children during the daytime and will be able to take them out and have them at her house. On these days, EnablerW would pick up and return the children to Enabler at times pre-arranged with him.” I do not agree that you (EnablerW) ‘have responsibility’ during the time I am working at home, however, I understand that there may be more preferable things for the children to enjoy whilst I am working (with children are under my care), so I am willing with prior communication and agreement from the children, that EnablerW can take the children away from my care at times during that week. EnablerW has stated to Enabler that both parents always have full parental responsibility regardless of where the children are and what they are doing. As discussed following this email, EnablerW has communicated that she would like to have the children under her care during the daytimes when Enabler is working and it is supposed to be his childcare week. She does not believe this should be dependent on Enablers agreement at the time but believes this should be a set arrangement. EnablerW stated that she has specifically chosen a job that enables her to care for their children before and after school, and during the school holidays, and does not want the children to be cared for by a third party instead of her. She does not believe it is in the children’s best interests for them to be with a parent who is working (even if it is from home) as opposed to a parent who is not working and is fully available to meet all their needs at all times and who is wishing to spend time with them. With regards to this summer holidays, this equates to just under half a week, so on this occasion EnablerW will concede to Enablers wishes to have them staying with him for that time as long as he, as promised, is reasonable in discussing the daytime arrangements and gives the girls and Enablers priority to see each other and does not influence their choice over this . For the future, Enabler would like to propose that if one person is working or otherwise unavailable to take care of the children themselves, the other parent will have first option to provide the care. EnablerW would also like an agreement in the future that states she will have the children staying with her and in her care on the weeks that Enabler is not taking holiday. If necessary, this can be discussed in mediation later. EnablerW states that this will not prevent grandparents from having time with the grandchildren and is supportive of the children’s relationships with the wider family. Grandparents are welcome to propose time with the children and this can be discussed between EnablerW and Enabler if the children are in the other parent’s care.  

“The aim will be to continue with a roughly 50/50 split with the children with regards to overnight stays whilst both parents are in XYZville.” Nothing was discussed about the agreement being dependant on both parents being located in Witley. As clarified verbally, EnablerW was referring here to when either parent is on holiday from work but is not away from home. The idea being that the children will still be able to see the other parent mid-week even when the other parent isn’t working.

All thoughts and advice greatly appreciated. I am speaking to a social worker friend this afternoon.

Enabler

[GaGrl]

In general, my reaction is the EnablerW is going to press for the loosest, "squishiest" parenting agreement possible, and you will spend years in further mediation trying to clarify the conflicts.

[Fian]

My take is you should keep it simple.  Kids are yours on certain days, kids are hers on others.  Any exceptions to that rule will be a discussion that you make at that time.  Kids feedback will not be a part of the legal agreement.  You don't agree that she can watch the kids while you are working.  You may agree to her assistance or you may not at certain times.  When the kids are with you, you have the ability to determine whether they are with you, her, or a third party.  You should not agree to in writing that she may be able to watch the kids while you are working.

If she doesn't agree to those terms, then you can get the courts/lawyers involved.

[Fian]

"The legal take on this is that it needs to be “child led” ie when a child expresses a desire to spend time with the other parent in this way, that should be permitted."
My take on this is she is having her lawyer negotiate on her behalf.  You should also involve your lawyer on your side.  At this point, just having the 2 lawyers hash it out is probably your best option.

[Enabler]

I agree with both of you what is a reasonable solution here but as much as I believe what is a reasonable approach, my W also believes her approach is reasonable (and likely being advised so) and is backing it up with legal stuff which I do not believe is legit. For example, the 'child led' approach may well be used when children are old enough to make informed, uncompromised decisions about their living arrangements, and as such their opinion is taken into consideration, but I do not agree that any court in any land would advocate that a Child should be given cart-blanch as to where they spend time. This approach would not only place the child in a vulnerable position to manipulation, but also compromise the responsible parents autonomy to parent their children as they see fit. Simplistically if one parent was to feed their children only sweets and soda and the other healthy meals and water, the children may choose the sweets and soda parent. From a family courts perspective would this be a reasonable choice to permit the children to make? Similarly, if a child's choice was given priority to reasonable family behaviour, a child might decide not to go and visit great auntie Marg with the hairy mole, and instead go to spend time with Mum. To me this idea doesn't fit, it places too much power in the hands of the most manipulative parent and actively encourages the children to be defiant and divisive.

I do not believe that this comment has come from a lawyer, I believe that this comment has come from someone who's a bit of an armchair lawyer/psychologist. They are spinning out terms to see what sticks.

Enabler

[kells76]

My take is you should keep it simple.  Kids are yours on certain days, kids are hers on others.  Any exceptions to that rule will be a discussion that you make at that time.  Kids feedback will not be a part of the legal agreement.  You don't agree that she can watch the kids while you are working.  You may agree to her assistance or you may not at certain times.  When the kids are with you, you have the ability to determine whether they are with you, her, or a third party.  You should not agree to in writing that she may be able to watch the kids while you are working.

110%

it places too much power in the hands of the most manipulative parent and actively encourages the children to be defiant and divisive.

110%

EnablerW agrees that ideally such ideas are discussed between the parents in advance without the children being involved, but they should also take into account the children’s wishes. The legal take on this is that it needs to be “child led” ie when a child expresses a desire to spend time with the other parent in this way, that should be permitted.  In addition, it is common for indirect contact eg by phone or social media messaging to be permitted when the child is with the other parent.  Again, this should be child led.  A child should not be prevented from speaking to the other parent if they wish to do so.

This reads to me as either a "bait and switch" or "motte and bailey" argument; I can't remember which one. Basically there is a bigger, more unreasonable thing actually being proposed (let the kids decide where to spend time), but when that gets poked at, there's a retreat to a "reasonable" position: "All I was advocating for was that the kids should be allowed to speak to the other parent when they want... what's so wrong with that".

Don't fall for it. Keep an unrelenting focus on defining your parenting time and hers. I completely agree with Fian on this one, having gone through a non-ironclad parenting plan with DH and his xW. Define PT specifically. Include 1 line of "deviations may be made with agreement via email in advance from both parents". She may throw all kinds of "psychological evidence" at you about why "listening to the children" is best and she's more in tune with what's "really healthy" for them. Don't go down that road, don't engage with it.

Research or have your L research "boilerplate" PP's in your region/county/area. Use some of that language in your proposal -- any judge will see who has done the legwork about what's really healthy for the kids, not just what sounds good.

If she doesn't agree to those terms, then you can get the courts/lawyers involved

Worth it. Don't cave on this.

[Enabler]

Thanks Kells,

This looks to be a good starting point for someone UK based.

https://oratto.co.uk/infographic/the-oratto-parenting-plan.pdf

Hmmm, how to respond to her email...

Enabler

[kells76]

Hmmm, how to respond to her email...

Am I tracking correctly that you mean this one, where the post starts:

My original comments in bold, her response following.

If so...

Do you even need to respond?

What I mean is, you guys are doing mediation, right?

Would responding to her email be "starting a parallel side track" to mediation? Any reason not to come up with a good "kids first" plan, and bring it to deal with in mediation, where there's a third party with eyes on things?

It would be a move towards the "businesslike" coparenting relationship to "do business in business settings" and not to engage about business elsewhere.

[Fian]

Kells, what you are describing is the mott and bailey tactic.

[Fian]

So what happens if you don't come to an agreement?  Is she basically prohibited from taking the kids from the house until an agreement is in place?

[Fian]

One more thing to watch out for.  She seems to be focused on communicating with kids while they are with you.  She would probably love a 2 hour skype session every night.

Bottom line, she is trying various tactics to extend her time with them to be greater than 50%.

[Enabler]

Just had a very helpful chat with an experienced social worker. She helped me cut through some of the terminology, especially the phrase "The legal take on this is that it needs to be “child led” ie when a child expresses a desire to spend time with the other parent in this way, that should be permitted."  In essence "Child led" or "Child in mind" or "Children's voice" is more associated with regards to the macro framework with which care, custody and parenting happens. If the children's preferences extended to the micro decisions of what they do of an afternoon then it would rapidly erode either parents ability to be a parent and place boundaries to ensure the children feel secure.

She touched on communication as well and made it clear that communication needs to be in the best interest of the children. A 2 hr Facetime every evening or constant stream of text messages is likely not in the best interests of the kids, and as such it is reasonable to restrict this if it were to get out of hand. She made the point that I should appeal to my W's emotions by expressing that it is important to me that I am allowed to have quality time with the kids without interruptions and able to parent with autonomy.

Enabler 

[formflier]

Wouldn't it be better to appeal to her emotions that SHE should be able to parent without interruption.

Once she agrees to that, then put it in the agreement.  Make it about her...not you.

Of course..standards would be the same for both in the agreement (don't go there unless you have to)

Best,

FF

[GaGrl]

The last sentence is an excellent position, but I'm not sure the social worker understands what it means to "appeal to her emotions."  

[kells76]

Enabler, one of the tactics that gets discussed over on Family Law is the "how do I make the other person feel like they're winning" tactic. I wonder if this is what the soc worker is getting at:

She made the point that I should appeal to my W's emotions by expressing that it is important to me that I am allowed to have quality time with the kids without interruptions and able to parent with autonomy.

Does your W "do better" or behave more cooperatively if she feels like/perceives that "the rules are the same for both of you"?

...

And, going back to your previous post, another thing we talk about on Family Law re: emails -- the first question should always be, "Do I even need to respond?" I've learned that the hard way.

[edit: looks like I cross posted with FF... I think we're getting at the same thing]

[formflier]

From what I understand of Enabler W, she WOULD want the standards to be different and might even go so far as to express it openly.

Getting into that battle is not going to be helpful, so I think it useful to get her to accept Enabler's concerns as her concerns, without knowing that she is agreeing to Enabler's concerns.

"I'm sure you want to be able to parent without interruption and we can discuss the outcome later (or during our normal time)."

Then once she is in agreement with these things and she wants to interrupt Enabler, the question is..."Oh, have you changed your opinion on the importance of not being interrupted?" (or something like that)

Don't point out her hypocrisy...let her connect the dots and wrestle with it.

Bottom line:  We all know it's best that the less contact...the better.  Enabler doesn't bug kiddos when with her and Enabler W doesn't bug them when with him.

There is another bottom line:  Don't save her from the consequences of HER choice to divorce.  And don't state this to her either.

She has made a choice to have times in her life where she is not the primary parent, we all know she doesn't like this.  That's hers to deal with.  Dealing with it doesn't "look like" interrupting Enabler's parenting time.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

These are great points. I think this last couple of months have been very challenging for her as her fantasy collides into her reality. I have been moderately good at not saving her from the emotional and practical consequences of that collision, whilst also avoiding being smug or condemnatory about it... it’s just a thing. One of those consequences is that she is now concerned that she does not have adequate protection re access to the kids.

The social worker ‘got it’ and I think she was trying to get me to calm my W by offering her some reassurance. That said, as FF pointed out, she does expect things to be different for her, and isn’t at all ashamed to verbalise it (and is assured of herself when verbalising it), so what happens when I offer her such reassurance, likely she will feel she can take even more.

I am still considering the nil response and whether or not an absence of response would be legally considered as stonewalling or non-cooperation vs her willingness to come to a resolution, albeit not really.

Enabler   

[kells76]

I am still considering the nil response and whether or not an absence of response would be legally considered as stonewalling or non-cooperation vs her willingness to come to a resolution, albeit not really.

There might be a "meet in the middle" solution:

"Hi enablerW;

Thanks for your thoughts on the parenting plan. I'm sure you will want to be able to parent without interruption, so let's discuss ideas for this in mediation on the 20th.

Best;

enabler"

Something where you are making a paper trail that you're not stonewalling or obstructing... and you're being firm that yes, you will work on this... in mediation. Not in a side channel. But of course, don't "explain" that you only work with her in mediation.

This would be classic BIFF.

[defogging]

Hi Enabler - I haven't been on this site in a year or two, though I've checked in on people now and then, as I received some great advice here from folks like you.  I'm sorry to hear about what you're going through.  

I divorced my exPDw in 2019, and based on my experience it seems to me like you really need legal representation, like now.  Forgive me if I don't know the whole backstory, but from reading this three part thread it sounds like you are trying to negotiate a settlement with your wife without representation.  From what I'm reading, she is really trying to manipulate it to her favor.  That's no surprise based on PD behavior, that's what I expected from my ex so I absolutely knew I needed representation.  I got a lawyer and he pushed for my rights so the kids and I could get what we deserve.

I didn't trust a word my ex said near the end, and over the last 15 months the manipulation towards me/kids/lawyers/therapists has been unbelievable, and has confirmed my lack of trust a thousand-fold.  Thankfully, since I have a lawyer retained, her effect is minimal.  It's been many of the same things discussed here - increasing her time with kids, pushing boundaries for communication, showing up at daycare during my parenting time unannounced, attempts at parental alienation, even to the point of trying to fire/hire therapists without my knowledge.  Again, thankfully, once I'm aware and my lawyer speaks to her lawyer, the behavior stops.  My lawyer has been a blessing, and has decreased my stress level in a huge way.  (though I hate the invoices I receive, LOL  )

Hiring a lawyer can be a touchy issue, perhaps that is the situation between you and your stbx.  I think at the core of it, having a lawyer to advise you removes all the doubt and uncertainty about what the arrangements should be.  I was extremely nervous about the divorce and access to my kids, but my lawyer calmed my situation very quickly and helped me regain confidence.  I know nothing about the UK, but what I found in my jurisdiction is that the courts and lawyers have a system in place and the formulas for everything are very simple.  There are pre-established parenting plans, pre-established ways to divide finances.  The parenting plans in place are established based on what's best for the kids.  In my jurisdiction, the father has equal rights to the mother so getting 50/50 time was the cookbook way the courts did it.  Again, I don't know your court system, but when I started speaking to lawyers and gained an understanding of the rights I have...it was a slam dunk that I knew the kids and I would be better off if I filed.  Knowledge is power, and that inspires self confidence.

When I went to my lawyer, I was stressed beyond belief.  I was dumbfounded when he said "this isn't that big of a deal, we can work it out" then he told me a couple of stories of people who have it way worse than me.  The reality I found is the courts have seen this a million times over and have no time for games.  So, if nothing else, I think you should at least speak to a lawyer and find out all the details of what you and the kids are entitled to.  Bring in reality and eliminate the fog of the PD bargaining.

I wish you the best, and please know that you will get through this!

[Enabler]

Thanks Defogging and I very much appreciate you coming back to share the hope and advice you have gained over the last few years. I take onboard the advice about the lawyers, I guess I have taken the view that I would engage a lawyer when I felt like I was out of my depth or struggling to understand where I stand. My issue at the moment seems less about understanding what is reasonable and what would get rubber stamped by a court, and more about how to communicate that to my W without escalating other areas.

Kells, there is no mediation session booked, and I am not averse to agreeing things via an email chain not least because it's free, and it allows me to slow down the response time allowing me time to consider. Email has allowed me the time to research some of the arguments she is making (which I would want to do anyway regardless of having a lawyer), and re-frame them correctly. I'm also conscious that I don't want to go down the route where ALL things have to be decided with a mediator/lawyer, I saw my old boss do this and it just created an arms race where him and his ex-wife would be outrageously litigious about everything (mainly him who came from a family of lawyers). Him and his ex would have a reasonable conversation and come to an amicable agreement about something to do with their son and the next day she would receive a recorded delivery lawyers letter she was required to sign and send back detailing the agreement. Invariably she didn't sign and the agreement they had made went out the window.

Enabler

[formflier]

There might be a "meet in the middle" solution:

"Hi enablerW;

Thanks for your thoughts on the parenting plan. I'm sure you will want to be able to parent without interruption, so let's discuss ideas for this in mediation on the 20th.

Best;

enabler"

 

Yes...yes...YEEEESSSSSS

This is the ticket.

Consider some tweaks that make it seem like her idea and her concern.

"Your concerns regarding parenting without interruption appear valid.  I also see the wisdom in your desire for a mediator to guide our process.  Let's discuss your parenting concern in mediation on the 20th.

Best,

Enabler"

This can likely be improved. 

Principles:  You are listening, you want to care for her concern, pathway forward in mediation.


Mediation strategy is a separate thing.  When she tries to have a double standard...befuddlement is your friend.

"Wait..what?  This wouldn't apply equally?  How does that work?" (to the mediator/room)

then.."What do you suggest?" (to the mediator)

Not a hint of concern...(yet) just more of a "how could this be?" thing.  Let mediators handle "talking sense".

Best,

FF

[kells76]

there is no mediation session booked, and I am not averse to agreeing things via an email chain not least because it's free, and it allows me to slow down the response time allowing me time to consider

OK, good to have the reminder of where you're at. I get trying to stay away from the $$$ route as long as possible. And email is certainly preferable to in person -- I understand the inherent "velocity limitation" of email and DH, and I do use that to our advantage when dealing with his xW. She thrives on escalation, and email (vs text or phone or in person) acts as a "drag chute", when we use it well.

I would engage a lawyer when I felt like I was out of my depth or struggling to understand where I stand. My issue at the moment seems less about understanding what is reasonable and what would get rubber stamped by a court, and more about how to communicate that to my W without escalating other areas.

OK, tracking with you here too. Thanks for the clarification.

Assuming there "never" (i.e., "effectively never" or "not until ten years from now") comes a point where you feel out of your depth -- what's the cutoff point for when you transition from working directly with STBxW to adding in a neutral third party or other professional?

If the only (or top, or main) criterion for adding the mediator or L is "this has grown too complicated for me to handle/fully understand", and that point is never reached... surely there must be some additional criterion that would stop the process from being an unending back and forth. You get what I'm saying, right? I'm sure you don't want to still be working through this with her when the kids are in their late teens... to be extreme.

Fill me in or remind me -- maybe I've missed where you talked about this.

...

I see where FF is getting the "enablerW has a desire for a mediator to guide the process" line...

EnablerW would like to suggest that if they find this difficult to agree on, they could discuss this in mediation or with the help of professional family counsellor.

So this is interesting.

Do you think W "senses" that you personally haven't reached the point of wanting to involve a mediator, and is playing off of that? I guess the dynamic I'm picturing is that she can pick up on "vibes" that you don't yet want to involve third parties, so she's stubbornly/oppositionally supporting that position, or advocating for it, or whatnot, perhaps mostly because you don't (yet) -- could this be close?

If so... that could be major leverage.

[formflier]

It could be leverage

or


It could be penny wise and pound foolish.

It seems to me that letting our wife "win" and go to mediation ASAP and getting an agreement on paper ASAP is critical.

The cost of mediation compared to the cost of a bad agreement or "bad process" seems like a massive difference to me.

Is time your friend or not?  That would seem to be a critical decision to make.  Not in a "it depends" sense, but in an absolute sense.  Once that is clear, let that drive decisions.


Best,

FF

[kells76]

It could be leverage

To clarify: in the sense that her desire for mediation is usable currency, not in the sense that it gives her leverage over enabler. I would see it more as something that gives enabler leverage in the process to do what is best for the kids.

[formflier]

Right.

My point is it's time to "spend" the currency.

There are a number of reasons why time does not appear to be on Enabler's side.

1 of them is that we know pwBPD "ruminate" and "stew" on things.  It's important to "turn" and "finalize" this because we know it's only going to get more whacky with time.

Best,

FF

[kells76]

I know there are lot of questions/ideas still hanging here for enabler. Seems to me they are all in the "solar system" orbiting the "sun" of... the main issue?

From Gagrl:

EnablerW is going to press for the loosest, "squishiest" parenting agreement possible, and you will spend years in further mediation trying to clarify the conflicts

From Fian:

So what happens if you don't come to an agreement?  Is she basically prohibited from taking the kids from the house until an agreement is in place?

From yours truly:

you don't want to still be working through this with her when the kids are in their late teens... to be extreme

From FF:

Is time your friend or not?  That would seem to be a critical decision to make.  Not in a "it depends" sense, but in an absolute sense.

...

I wonder if it's time for jiu jitsu:

Your W might be "pushing hard" into the position of "let's get a mediator", and right now she is getting the "pushback" she expects: enabler would like to keep this the two of them at the moment. Picture the two of you standing up, facing each other, grappling, forces exact and opposite. She wants to go behind you, you want to go behind her (just the concrete mental picture, nothing metaphorical).

There is some "potential energy" in the interaction that, if harnessed correctly and soon, could actually take W to where she thinks she wants to go (I want to push enabler so hard that he gets out of the way and I go stand behind where he is -- concrete mental picture)... but in a way that is advantageous to you.

You just step aside and all that "pushing hard" energy sends W where she wants to go... but she ends up on the mat, not on her feet, due to her own pushing. Make sense?

OK, I know that wasn't "real" jiu jitsu, but it's the idea of allowing the other person to use their own energy, but through your disengagement they get hamstrung by their own energy to your advantage.

So:

"cave in" to what she wants, make it look like / allow her to feel like she won when you "fight just a little but then give up" about mediation.

Meanwhile, you have written a bulletproof kid first plan protecting your time with them. You present that in mediation and the mediator ends up looking at her: this plan looks great; any problems enablerW?

She is in a double bind: didn't she want mediation? Didn't you agree that "her insight was correct, you agree she's right that mediation is needed"?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is:

it could be the case that while it may feel like "you're in the driver's seat" as you go back and forth just you and W, she might actually have more power in this situation than it initially seems. And while it may feel like "she's in the driver's seat" if mediation is agreed upon, YOU might actually have more power in that situation than you think.

Lots of thoughts... lots of questions.

I'm with FF based on my experience: the sooner it's signed on paper, the better.

[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=345069.0