She wants to change the mediators

[mart555]

Don't expect too much from mediation. We had came to pretty big agreement on Friday which my ex wanted to sign but since she has BPD and it was a long day the mediator wanted to cover her ass and said that she had to wait until Monday to sign.  Of course her mood had changed and she doesn't want to sign it anymore because she doesn't understand it. 

It's maddening.      And a big waste of $$$...

[Fian]

If I understand things, you are willing to try another mediator, but you don't have high expectations that a new mediator will give better results.  There is one advantage of a new mediator.  She really can't reject a second mediator, and if she did, it would probably give you a major advantage on the legal side of things.  So if you don't see one of the three mediators as better than the other, and you are concerned about cost, maybe you pick the cheapest of the three.

[Enabler]

Do you see this message in what has been said to you?

Yes I do Skip

I  am frustrated that in her efforts to appear reasonable she still manages to be that little bit unreasonable and inconsistent.

I don't like mediator A for really good reasons that I will not tell you  here a bunch of new mediators I've been told are good but won't specify why they are different  you make the final choice... but you're not allowed to choose mediator A

"I want control but I don't want responsibility."

It's reasonable to ask to coe and see D12 here because D12 won't come to hers, it's unreasonable to spend the time here slagging my parenting off to the kids whilst here.

It's reasonable to question signing a new 25yr mortgage with me and attempt to find other alternatives. It's not reasonable to be 5 days away from D day and not given me definite response as to whether she will or will not sign.

The unreasonableness is in the detail. She has the support, she has the network of knowledgeable friends, she has the money, she has the intelligence to make this happen if she put her mind to it.

One note on something you said

At the same time, you know that no matter what you offer her, she has no way of knowing if it is fair or trickery, and she is unlikely to agree to it

I have offered her what she asked for... or at least I have shown her how she can get what she has asked for using more of her own means than mine. Based on the conversation I had with my lawyer it was reasonable and court process driven.
 

[Enabler]

maybe you pick the cheapest of the three.

Pretty much my plan

[formflier]

I  am frustrated that in her efforts to appear reasonable she still manages to be that little bit unreasonable and inconsistent.
 

Do you think she is "thoughtfully" and "purposefully" trying to be reasonable? 

I don't.  I think she is doing what she does with the "skills" and ability to emotionally regulate that she has.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

I don't.  I think she is doing what she does with the "skills" and ability to emotionally regulate that she has.

I agree FF, I would also add that she is being advised by people who also appear on the veneer surface to be reasonable yet act in utterly unreasonable ways. She is being advised that her actions are utterly reasonable... e.g. "Stonewalling question you don't want to answer is reasonable". Kinda a mal-application of a reasonable tool in an unreasonable situation.

"How often are you sleeping with OM?"... reasonable to not answer.
"Why will you not enter into a new joint names mortgage on the house?" ... not reasonable to not answer.

The narrative that all questions New-Life asks that I don't like it is reasonable to ignore or not answer.

[Skip]

"How often are you sleeping with OM?"... reasonable to not answer.
"Why will you not enter into a new joint names mortgage on the house?" ... not reasonable to not answer.

This happens in divorce a lot (BPD or not). As it progresses, communication with her is going to continue to deteriorate. Often at the conclusion of divorces, there is no communication at all - the lawyers and the judges do all the conversing.

She feels that you are controlling/oppressing so it is refreshing to her to be on equal footing. You are struggling with that, which is common, too.

Breaking this down.

"I don't want to work with this mediator anymore because we are not getting anywhere in a year and people are telling me he has a reputation for that. Here are three options, pick one." ~  stbx wife.

In an equal adult setting, this is a full and complete, reasonable, and cooperative answer.

"Please provide evidentiary support for your decision for me to consider (or debate)" ~  New-Life wife.

Depending on how this was exactly phrased (and given her feelings that you are controlling and your admittance that you are stubborn), this is at best, condescending. It is reasonable for her to say "I'm not going down that rabbit hole".

STBX is asserting her independence from you. More of this is coming.

"Why will you not enter into a new joint names mortgage on the house?" ... not reasonable to not answer.

Breaking this down...

It's much the same. She has said no and from the "plantiffs side", that seems reasonable, too. Why should she get on the mortgage of the home you are going to live in? Why should she get on the mortgage of the home she thinks should be sold and funds distributed? Why should she "cut you a break" when you refused to "cut her a break"' on things that were important to her?

She is doing what you did... passive resistance.

The issue is not for her to explain, "why will you not enter into"...  The issue is for you to convince her "why doing this is in her best interest".

Do you see the point here? You are acting like you are her parent and demanding she convince you... You are expecting cooperation for the greater good when you refused to cooperate with her for the greater good.

Warning This is peanuts compared to what will likely happen if a junkyard lawyer get into this.

All the signals are here that she is going to do what it takes to get out of the relationship and that she sees you as plaintiff and defendant now, not husband and wife.

If this second mediator doesn't get this divorce settled, regardless of who is at fault, you can bet that her next step in a lawyer. And you say that the she has no ability to settle this herself and any self represented mediation is not likely to be effective.

You still have a chance to get this into a collaborative law situation... preemptively block her from stumbling into a junkyard dog.

She is driving this thing and its clear where it is headed.

[Enabler]

Skip, she already has a lawyer and has done since 2017. She's had plenty of advice already.

I'm not sure why you've decided to make up a reasonable narrative for my W and re-framed me as being unreasonable and condescending. Plain and simply the reasoning she gave bore no resemblance to email documented evidence, the mediators attempts to prompt meetings, his behaviour during the meetings or the quality of the documents he produced at our request. I'm not arguing feeling, I'm arguing facts here... her feelings do not come into the equation when measuring his professional competence, and she has used his professional competence as a reason to justify a change of mediator. You can't sue a builder based on your feeling about the wall he built even though the wall adheres to every construction standard, is straight, and in the place you asked for it to be. 

I have applied for a single applicant mortgage to mitigate the default. I believe I have enough correspondence to support that I am taking reasonable action to mitigate an event should any question be raised as to who's liability the mortgage is and what the purpose of my action is (and taken advice on that).

It's much the same. She has said no and from the "plantiffs side", that seems reasonable, too. Why should she get on the mortgage of the home you are going to live in? Why should she get on the mortgage of the home she thinks should be sold and funds distributed? Why should she "cut you a break" when you refused to "cut her a break"' on things that were important to her?

Because she has a legal obligation to maintain reasonable financial measures until such time other arrangements have been made through the correct legal channels, and I have been advised that I could (spend money) have a judge sign on her behalf. Lets flip this around... I've moved out and I'm a Disney Dad, the mortgage is coming to expiry, she needs me to roll the mortgage as she can't secure the mortgage under her own income... would it be reasonable for me to say "Nope!"? Under her plan how would those funds be distributed? What new house would either of us buy since I don't know how much capital I will get out of the distributed capital? What mortgage could I get not knowing what income I was paying away in spousal maintenance to her? Would we both rent until a resolution was found (even though staying in the matrimonial house is the most cost effective way of housing at least one of us... £750pcm vs £1500pcm min)?

I appreciate that in her mind all this is unreasonable and my actions/inaction and unwillingness to yield to her flights of fancy is seen in her eyes as combative, but, I can't really help her feelings and yielding to her magical thinking (that I should trust her and that she is trustworthy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) seems like it will inevitably put me (and my ability to provide for the children) in a pickle.

New-Life

[formflier]

  is the most cost effective

So...what do you believe is the most cost effective way to divorce her?

Please compare her current lawyer to a "junk yard dog" lawyer.

I'm curious to see how you work out those numbers.

Best,

FF

[Skip]

I could (spend money) have a judge sign on her behalf.

NL, I think you are not understanding the reality of family court.

If you went before a judge he would ask you what options you had and was loss you would suffer.

You told us earlier the bank would continue the loan if you simply set a court date.  You didn't try. You opted not to do that. You choose instead to self finance which you can easily do.

He would rule for her.

Lets flip this around... I've moved out and I'm a Disney Dad, the mortgage is coming to expiry, she needs me to roll the mortgage as she can't secure the mortgage under her own income... would it be reasonable for me to say "Nope!"?

It is magical thinking to think that the court sees you two as equal. It doesn't. You hold the credit rating. She would likely lose the house.

In this case, the judge would also rule for her.

You basing a lot of what you are doing on some expectation that a divorce trial operates like a murder trial. It doesn't - not at all.

[Enabler]

FF,

You and I both know that to come up with such a probability weighted outcome we would have to go through some serious game theory and a complex Monti Carlo which frankly I wasn't paying enough attention to in my micro economics university course to remember some 20 years down the track. If I'm correct it's a slightly more complex prisoners dilemma game.

I know it's not the most academically robust of answers but the most cost effective outcome will be for me to give each incremental stage the best chance it possibly can. The outcome of the prisoners dilemma is that both prisoners are incentivised to rat on each other in a self defeating manner. Whilst my W is not pursuing self defeating "rat" outcomes and I am not forced into such a simultaneous choice game I'm not sure why I would push for a move costly choice. I was trying to give the least costly option the greatest opportunity possible however my W appears to have scuppered that option.

New-Life

[Enabler]

You basing a lot of what you are doing on some expectation that a divorce trial operates like a murder trial. It doesn't - not at all.

No, I am basing my choices on legal opinion from the £305+VAT lawyer the board encouraged me to seek. Said lawyer also said that getting a court date for the divorce was unrealistic given the timescale since there would need to be a preliminary hearing before. Getting an emergency hearing for the mortgage matter would be possible (but costly).

Your response regarding "flipping it around"... my point was regarding what my W would think was reasonable, NOT what the court would see as reasonable. I full agree it would be reasonable for me to continue being joint names on the mortgage until such point financial mediation as concluded and docs signed.

[worriedStepmom]

I was trying to give the least costly option the greatest opportunity possible however my W appears to have scuppered that option.

Your wife isn't motivated by the same things that you are.  Her logic is definitely not the same as yours.  Her goals are different than yours.

Therefore, if your planning is solely taking into account what is best for your pocketbook, under the assumption that she will (continue to) cooperate - your planning is flawed, and it is likely going to cost you a lot more money in the long run.  You'll end up paying for the cheap option AND one of the other options.  Because, honestly, what are the odds that another mediation will be successful?

That may be worth it to you, in the long run, because while the process drags out you continue to be married, you continue to live in the home, you continue to have a life that you seem pretty satisfied with, while not having to spend a lot of money YET.

[ForeverDad]

I have applied for a single applicant mortgage to mitigate the default.

I don't foresee any risk in doing this IF eventually during the course of the divorce process (1) you end up with the house or (2) the house is sold and proceeds split according to the terms of the divorce.

However, if your Ex eventually walks away with the house then you would, for the term of the mortgage, bear all the responsibility for the property and payment while she has the house but no responsibility.  For example, if she fails to maintain insurance and the house burns down, you will be stuck paying the mortgage for an empty lot.  Even if the terms of the mortgage require that there be insurance, how would you get her compliance to pay it?  Just so you know.

[formflier]

You and I both know that to come up with such a probability weighted outcome we would have to go through some serious game theory and a complex Monti Carlo which  

I was deliberate to not set any parameters on how you would answer.

Listen...please read the following and experience it not as criticism or praise, but as an observation in a matter of fact way.

You are obviously a very well thought out...precise person.  I suspect many things in your life are very "tidy" and "done properly".  Hold on to those traits and please know that I appreciate them.

As you might have guessed by my screen name and avatar, I'm a retired Naval Aviator...so time on targets with tolerances expressed in seconds...precise altitudes and on and on.  I get it.

I also get that going into situations were you need to set that aside can be extremely uncomfortable (I'm probably saying that over politely)..

Anyway...for the sake of argument limit your analysis to two options.

1.  Pressing forward with her current legal team as quickly as possible and her current unreasonable/emotional "logic".

and

2.  Her finally despairing and getting a "junkyard dog lawyer" and turning the hounds of divorce hell loose on you.

Which one of those (at the end of the day..when  divorce is final) will cost you less money?

Which one of those (at the end of the day...defined as 20 years after final divorce) will have cost you less money?

The axiom that I'm going to ask you to use is that her despairing and getting a junkyard dog lawyer is a certainty, with the only known unknown  being the length of time it will take for her to reach despair and grab the junkyard dog.

Now...please run the analysis again and give me "more likely than not" answers.

Best,

FF

 

[Cat Familiar]

After trying to negotiate in good faith and do a collaborative divorce, my ex suddenly engaged the services of a junkyard dog lawyer. Believe me, you don’t want to be in that position.

What will happen if she constantly feels you are being condescending and stonewalling or passive aggressive, she will finally lose her last shred of tolerance and hire an aggressive litigator...and you won’t see it coming.

So she’s had a lawyer for a few years. Doesn’t mean squat. Lots of lawyers refer out cases when they sense it’s going to be a high conflict litigation.

[mart555]

After trying to negotiate in good faith and do a collaborative divorce, my ex suddenly engaged the services of a junkyard dog lawyer. Believe me, you don’t want to be in that position.

Yeah but that's not really something we have control over. You can negotiate something that seems fair (or even more than fair) and in the eyes of someone with BPD if they don't get everything it's like losing it all (ie: the feeling of entitlement).

I think that my ex is in the same boat.  Lawyer #3, this one seemed reasonable, yet in mediation things aren't going anywhere because she feels entitled, or agrees to something then changes her mind when it comes time to sign.   

There's only so much we can control...

[formflier]

Yeah but that's not really something we have control over.

We certainly have influence over it and knowing this is likely we (nons) can elevate "speed" in our negotiating value.

You do have a point...not at all dismissing that.

I suppose another way to say it.  "Nons should not unnecessarily delay getting to a final divorce by chasing trivial or non-essential matters."


Best,

FF

[mart555]

I suppose another way to say it.  "Nons should not unnecessarily delay getting to a final divorce by chasing trivial or non-essential matters."

This I fully agree with.  But every time we try to speed up things well it seems like the following roadblock is worse.

[formflier]

So...my vantage point is watching the stories unfold here and also watching my brother in law (now ex brother in law) divorce my wife's sister (who is much much more BPDish than my wife).

One thing my BIL was advised and took onboard was that he needed to get a divorce "he could live with".  Nothing..nothing in there about "happy" or "satisfied" or any of that.

Kids were involved so the biggest thing he fought for were clauses about professional counseling.

Anyway, the most successful people seem to get to each roadblock do one or two dances with the pwBPD and either settle the issue or press forward to court...knowing that will either get the fairness or the pwBPD will crack under pressure and settle. 

Best,

FF

[ForeverDad]

One thing my BIL was advised and took onboard was that he needed to get a divorce "he could live with".  Nothing..nothing in there about "happy" or "satisfied" or any of that.

That's pragmatic... Accept "what is" and walk out with the least damage.

Anyway, the most successful people seem to get to each roadblock do one or two dances with the pwBPD and either settle the issue or press forward to court...knowing that will either get the fairness or the pwBPD will crack under pressure and settle.

With her not being in charge of parenting your two pre-teens recently since her move out, I just don't know how obstructive she will continue to be, or whether it will get worse.  That's an unknown, but in my view she lost some leverage with her move and reduced parental contact.  The longer she is not primary parent, the better for you (and the kids).  I have a couple favorite truisms on this topic.  They may or may not apply depending on which path New-Life's ex decides to take:

Court may not be fair but usually it is generally less unfair than our obstructive ex-spouses.

Typically the stbEx feels extremely entitled and in charge, however court is the Real Authority.  Going to court, if that's what has to be done, can bring reality to the stbEx and can surprise us with finally working out a settlement.

[Skip]

Getting an emergency hearing for the mortgage matter would be possible (but costly).

I'm not sure why you debate this constructive advice. It's not helpful to you or her to get into tangential duels.

Respectfully, a 1 hour chat with an attorney is very different than a legal opinion after looking at discovery.

Sure, you could get a hearing. Did the lawyer say, based on an understanding of the situation, that you would likely prevail in having having the court force your wife to co-apply for the mortgage when you can easily carry it yourself and you intend to occupy the home?

Question: Why do you want her on the mortgage?

...should not unnecessarily delay getting to a final divorce by chasing trivial or non-essential matters."

Another wording could be to say "let her go". A lot of this is you struggling to let it go - detach.

That's hard. We have people on the detaching board spending months to break away.

It's hard to lose someone you love.

[Enabler]

So, this morning I spent 1.5hrs on the phone to the bank applying for the single name mortgage, which has gone fine as expected. The bank said that they would need written confirmation from my W's solicitor to ensure that she has been advised correctly such is the rarity of someone being on the title deed but not named on the mortgage. I thought that was interesting.

Whilst I was on the phone to the bank, I received an email from my W stating that she would not agree to ANY changes in the mortgage (this is the mortgage that is expiring in 10 days time, and the one that she said she would categorically NOT be joint signature to a replacement mortgage last week) without first discussing with a mediator. Odd since she claims NOT being on the joint mortgage was the advice that she had received from her solicitor.

[Enabler]

I believe there is a balance... too many legal people will make her feel controlled, too few will make her feel vulnerable. I have spent 20+ years matching her in verbal arguments... until I didn't. Acting to "sort this out" or "free her" will likely just result in her paranoia/vulnerability/fear/anger all being triggered. By taking the legal step 1 step ahead i.e upping the anti, I will be pouring fuel onto the fire that's burning at my feet.

[worriedStepmom]

Acting to "sort this out" or "free her" will likely just result in her paranoia/vulnerability/fear/anger all being triggered. By taking the legal step 1 step ahead i.e upping the anti, I will be pouring fuel onto the fire that's burning at my feet.

There's obviously a balance to be had.  However, I question a strategy that allows the mentally ill person who cannot make logical decisions be in charge of the path forward.

My H spent a lot of years post-divorce trying really really hard not to trigger his ex.  We finally realized that our attention was being put in the wrong place.  We should have been - and now are - protecting SD and ourselves.  We've put in place lots of boundaries to keep her crazy away from us.   We discovered she has about the same number and intensity of episodes as when we were trying not to trigger her.  It's just now she has them away from us.

You're still thinking like her husband. 

[MeandThee29]

I agree with what others have posted here. It is a valid approach push forward on what is right without expectations related to what is or is not going to happen next. I'm in closeout, but it's same-old-same-old.

We learned with mine that we had to respond quickly and firmly with the facts and then step back. If that didn't work, we had to provide more facts without changing our position. My ex no longer has an attorney, so that makes things a little harder, but we've gotten through several recent flare-ups where I maintained my position. If we had gone to court, my attorney said it would be a very short hearing, indeed, with or without his own attorney. I don't know if my ex knows or agrees with that, but he did back off.

My closeout is down to waiting on final approval on one issue, and then I'm done. I can't imagine what that will feel like.

[Fian]

Whilst I was on the phone to the bank, I received an email from my W stating that she would not agree to ANY changes in the mortgage (this is the mortgage that is expiring in 10 days time, and the one that she said she would categorically NOT be joint signature to a replacement mortgage last week) without first discussing with a mediator. Odd since she claims NOT being on the joint mortgage was the advice that she had received from her solicitor.

It sounds like she is trying to use something that is important to you (mortgage) to get what she wants (new mediator).  Didn't you agree to a new mediator already?  Also, what are your options if she sticks to above statement, and blocks your new mortgage?

[Enabler]

Am I?

Or is it that I suspect that if I up the anti she will fall into the arms of a helpful junkyard lawyer where bad things will happen.

My guess is she is following the advice of others, and those others have and continue to lead her down rabbit warrens whilst I sit at the top on my little stool waiting for her to come back up again.

I don't believe that I am not acting because of her emotions, more factoring in what her reaction to my action is likely to be and how that's likely to benefit or hinder me in getting where I want to be. You don't walk past a wasps nest if there's a good simple route round it.

NL

[Enabler]

It sounds like she is trying to use something that is important to you (mortgage) to get what she wants (new mediator). 

BINGO! Agree, although not 100% sure on the reasoning. I think she thinks that I am going to lock up her capital and freeze the D... not my intention at all.

Blocking the new mortgage would be interesting, since she hasn't provided another alternative other than selling the house which I have been advised she is not allowed to do. So I believe it would come down to my lawyer sending her lawyer a stiff letter saying "You can't not join a joint mortgage and not allow him to have a single name mortgage... pick one."

I provided her with the information she requested proving out how it was possible on a capital and affordability basis that I could buy her out of the house given the proposal I put forward to her.

[formflier]

Hey...to your thought about not upping the ante, so she won't get a junkyard dog L...

If you go that route, you are leaving things up to her...you are reacting to her...so in a sense, you are putting her in charge of the divorce decisions.  (or at least deferring to her...I can't do x because I fear she will do y).

From a big picture point of view...be the captain of your own ship.  Do your best to run your agenda..let her react to you.

Best,

FF