Parenting conundrum

[How to communicate after a contentious divorce...]

Here is a conundrum I am facing, which will only escalate as things open up post Covid:

My stbx wife has an emotional spinup at the line of sight of me.  This triggers her into a physical reaction similar to an anaphylaxis shock and she swells up and even needs to hit the epi pen or go to the ER as precaution.

During initial divorce when we were both still living in the house, if I came into a room she was in she would run out and accuse me of deliberately trying to kill her (all in front of the kids of course).

Because of this, I am unable to participate in events of my children.  Things like school plays, extra curriculars, etc.  Because if I am there mom will have a reaction and have to go to the ER.

So my daughters sometimes will even text me and tell me to not come.  (both daughters are refusing the parenting plan so I no longer see them).

The lawyers and counselors have no clear advice on this.  (parenting time is deemed unenforceable once above a certain age, my youngest is 12). 

So my conundrum is, at what point do I start attending their events and what should I do leading up to it?  A year ago it was implied by my daughters that if I came they would drop out just to avoid the situation. 

Counselors and lawyers and other health professionals have advised they have never heard of such a thing as anaphylaxis shock being triggered by line of sight.  But at the same time they feel a GAL will be of no practical value.

Any thoughts?

[yeeter]

Here is a conundrum I am facing, which will only escalate as things open up post Covid:

My stbx wife has an emotional spinup at the line of sight of me.  This triggers her into a physical reaction similar to an anaphylaxis shock and she swells up and even needs to hit the epi pen or go to the ER as precaution.

During initial divorce when we were both still living in the house, if I came into a room she was in she would run out and accuse me of deliberately trying to kill her (all in front of the kids of course).

Because of this, I am unable to participate in events of my children.  Things like school plays, extra curriculars, etc.  Because if I am there mom will have a reaction and have to go to the ER.

So my daughters sometimes will even text me and tell me to not come.  (both daughters are refusing the parenting plan so I no longer see them).

The lawyers and counselors have no clear advice on this.  (parenting time is deemed unenforceable once above a certain age, my youngest is 12). 

So my conundrum is, at what point do I start attending their events and what should I do leading up to it?  A year ago it was implied by my daughters that if I came they would drop out just to avoid the situation. 

Counselors and lawyers and other health professionals have advised they have never heard of such a thing as anaphylaxis shock being triggered by line of sight.  But at the same time they feel a GAL will be of no practical value.

Any thoughts?

[kells76]

I wonder if there's a way to use that setup to shine light on what she *really* wants.

OK, so, up until now, the scenario has been:

"She just can't help it... it's out of her control. What, like she makes herself have a life-threatening reaction? The ONLY WAY for her to be safe is for you to not be there at the same time. What can she do?"

It's this whole scenario where the focus, the keystone, is all about her very life. "Of course, if she didn't have the reaction, of course you could be there... but what can she do, she'll die if you're there, so she wishes it were different, but sigh, this is just how it is".

It seems like the subtext is: she would be fine with you being at the school events if she didn't have the "uncontrollable" reaction.

But I bet there is something else going on.

She doesn't want you there, and THAT'S the keystone issue, but she's making the #1 issue her "health".

So, can we swap things around a bit, and get her to inadvertently expose that it isn't her health that's the "real" issue, it's her not wanting the kids to have time with you.

What if you proposed in an email (or other written form) that you completely understood her health concerns (sigh... more than she knows, but you don't have to go there), and suggested that you guys alternate attending the kids' events. Sure, nobody gets to go to 100% of the events, but surely her point can't be to exclude you from 100%... right?

That seems like a starting point to get in an email thread -- this would be a completely reasonable (I know, I know, she isn't, I know) compromise. Her rejecting that (which she will, right?) seems like it could open some doors for a new way forward.

Instead of all the engagement being about "Don't make Mom sick... is Mom's reaction real or not...", it'd sidestep all of that and focus on a solution. Her response to the solution could point the conflict down a different path. Because right now, the conflict is exactly where she wants it -- unfalsifiable and unquestionable. "Let her" have the point that sure, she has a life threatening reaction. But move past that to "but surely neither of us wants to exclude the other from events".

It also wouldn't surprise me if she wrangled the kids into saying something like "But listen to us, we want Mom there at Every Single Event". Would she pull something like "Well, I agree with you, we should alternate, but the kids don't want that"? That kind of overempowerment? I wonder if the counselors would have something to work with there.

Really curious if that could move things in a different direction.

[ForeverDad]

kells76 has proposed an excellent strategy, considering the circumstances.  It should be especially practical on your official court-ordered parenting time.

Although school activities are generally open to both parents, you can go and if she has a (dramatic histrionic) fit upon merely seeing you, that's her issue.  (Obviously you would never speak to or approach your ex.)  You avoiding her - and hence the kids too - enables her to "win".  Is she Histrionic PD?

Yes, it's tough but if the children are manipulated into avoiding you anyway, what's to lose?  Well, extreme histrionics, there's that.  But would a family court actually entertain a claim someone is allergic to their ex?  I do have a concern she'll use it as a way to morph it into a 'fear' of you, that you're a danger to her, despite having been living with you as a married couple day and night for years in the past.  That's posturing and she's likely to milk it for all she can.

[kells76]

And I also wonder, if there could be some kind of "I will be happy to video the event and send it to you" offer from you.

Of course, she would be fine if SHE videoed every event and sent it to YOU, right? Like, if it's good enough for YOU to just see a video, surely it's good enough for HER to see 50% on video?

Again, the more problem solving of the "assumed" problems you can do, the more those "assumed" problems get swept away, and what's left won't look good for her.

[yeeter]

I do think Kells has some great ideas.  It is going to be a lot of drama to execute and may mean the kids drop some participation.  But as FD says, not much to lose.

" I do have a concern she'll use it as a way to morph it into a 'fear' of you, that you're a danger to her"

Yes to this.  Has already been implied that I am dangerous and unsafe as a person.

The 'Parenting plan' has been deemed unenforceable.  Per multiple lawyers.  And even counseling is unlikely to help if they are opposed to it (you cant 'make' someone be open to counseling).

The only advice is to wait for them to mature and form their own views, which behavior is pretty ridiculous to an outsider looking in.  Clearly not 'normal'.  The drama is not only 'her' issue when the kids get sucked into having to manage through it.  A key question is to the degree it makes things worse for me with my kids.

It is kinda the nuclear bomb of weapons to prevent me from staying engaged with my kids.

Three themes I am trying to combat to the degree possible given limited communications:

1)  That she is the only one that loves them.  I combat this by trying to make them proud of themselves - that happiness comes from within.

2)  That your other parent (me) is dangerous and unavailable.  I combat this by trying to make them feel safe and available.  By including comments in the emails I send about concern over their health, and I moved close to the school.

3)  That pursuing a relationship with the other parent (me), you are jeopardizing the relationship with mom.  I try to communicate that BOTH parents will always love them and nothing they can ever do will stop either from loving them.  Give them freedom to love both openly.

[kells76]

I do think Kells has some great ideas.  It is going to be a lot of drama to execute and may mean the kids drop some participation.  But as FD says, not much to lose.

Relatable. The drama of executing a plan that normal parents get to do.

Here's an interesting thought experiment... don't actually do it, but I am curious...

What do you think she would do if she were required to videotape every single kids event she was at, and provide it to you within X timeframe (like 12 hours or something)?

I mean... she would be "winning", the kids would be "winning", so there's nothing about that plan she wouldn't like... right?

I have this feeling like she would not comply. She would "forget" or argue or balk or whatever... but at some point, she would not do it.

and THAT, to me, would be the ultimate "reveal".

I mean, if you're at rock bottom, it might be worth trying. It'd show her true colors.

But, if it were me, I'd try the "modest proposal" of "parents split kids' events 50/50" first.

[GaGrl]

A thought here...what is STBX going to do when she has to appear in court with you? It's not as if you have a Cloak of Invisibility. She would either have to show her physical reaction to the court and judge (in all its dysfunctionality), or she would have to show that she can, in fact, be in physical proximity to you.

Do you have a scheduled hearing soon? It might be worth forcing this issue.

[formflier]

So...why not just show up at events and ignore the entire thing?


Personally...I think the safest/wisest way forward is the kells76 idea.

But...what if you ignored it. 

Just be a dad and show up.  Leave the door open for compromise is her medical doctors provide your L's with a diagnosis.

This is a head scratcher.

Best,

FF

[yeeter]

We did have a pre trial hearing via zoom.  The start was delayed while she was able to put a sticky over my image but still see everyone else.  This was explained to the judge (didn’t bat an eye)

And ‘revealing’ her true intent is of no practical value.  You can’t physically force a teenager to do anything.  So until they are able to gain their own sense of reality they will conform to mom's narrative. One lawyer said... when a parent puts their own emotional needs at a higher priority than their children, there is little the court can do

[yeeter]

Agree.  Kells approach is quite practical.  Useful and glad I posted. Essentially what happened in court, show up, let ‘her’ manage her own issues. 

The difference is the drama the kids will be dragged through.

[ForeverDad]

When I was first separated, my ex posed/postured as though she was afraid of me.  That was after 15 years of marriage and 3 years of parenting together.  Go figure how credible that was.

However, the boilerplate temp order gifted her temp custody and majority time.  She sought out enablers.  One agency was a local child counseling center.  I didn't find out for 3 months.  When I contacted them they acted as though I was dangerous, wouldn't tell me anything and asked me to submit my request in writing.  That's when they replied with a form letter and the line checked that I was "likely to be a danger to my child or others".

This despite me having "standard" alternate weekends with my preschooler.   I expected them to know the schedule, how could I be a danger when the court order gave me full unrestricted 3 day alternate weekends?   But the court order gifted her full temp custody (around here we know "temporary" can go on and on far longer than normal) and so their position was that they could only listen to her.

So I've been there, though with a preschooler and not teens.  My ex kept up her posturing as fearful throughout the two year divorce.  Court basically ignored it and let her posture.  I walked out on Trial Day with a settlement where I had the Custody Evaluator's recommended equal time.  That's when the counseling staff became more open with me.

[formflier]

Kinda adding to my idea.

Express confidence in her medical teams ability to figure this out.  Provide her times that you can physically be present so they can hook her up with wires and monitors so they can figure out what is actually going on with her when you step into her line of sight.

Of course..it would be better for you to be there in person..rather than via video.  It's important to her health to get the best data possible.

Of course you are supportive because parenting time is important..right?  I mean..you wouldn't want her to miss out for not being able to "see" you.

Or something like that..

Best,

FF

[livednlearned]

One lawyer said... when a parent puts their own emotional needs at a higher priority than their children, there is little the court can do

Wow. That would p!ss me off to hear that! It's like a big ¯\_(''_)_/¯

kells76 has a great idea.

A lawyer could say, "Mom isn't complying. We're going to court to discuss. Here's the kells76 plan. If mom doesn't comply, then she cannot go to events. Yeeter is parent on record for attending events."

Not that draconian in language but something to get mom to solve her problem.

I'm trying to think of what my lawyer would've done ... she probably would have asked the judge to order testing, and require ex to step down from attending kid events until someone could do a medical examination.

It seems so transparent what's going on ...

[kells76]

And, if you end up proposing the 50/50 events plan, see if you can include some kind of "both parents... neither parent..." language. Something like, "both parents shall adhere to the time sharing schedule for children's activities. Parent A may/shall attend any event on an even #'d day, and Parent B may/shall attend any event on an odd #'d day. Neither parent shall attend an event on a day they are not scheduled to, unless there is written (paper, text, or email) agreement at least 30 minutes prior to the start time of the event. Attendance is defined as being anywhere on the property where the event is being held, from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the event."

Or, leave out the "unless written agreement" if you think she would manipulate the kids with it: "I begged Dad to let me see you perform, but he said no. I'm so sorry, I really tried" type BS.

The even/odd day thing means you don't have to keep working with her on "I was at D15's basketball game last week, and she has another one tomorrow, but S17 had a band concert yesterday, so that means I get to go to D15's game, not you". You both look at the calendar, that's it. No "working with each other".

The "both parents/neither parent" thing means that it's the exact same standards for both of you. You'll do great at complying, and she won't, and as LnL said, that is actionable in court.

[B53]

teeter.
This post is heartbreaking. I can’t think of anything crueler then to deny a child, the love of a parent. I came across this group. I have no idea if this is worth checking out, I know nothing about it. Hopefully it is helpful and not a waste of time.

https://www.familyaccessfightingforchildrensrights.org/helping-courts-understand-the-phenomenon-of-alienation-nc-conference.html

Best of luck!
B53

[worriedStepmom]

There are reconciliation specialists who help children get over whatever is motivating them not to see their parent.

Perhaps you can get a court order requiring your children to go to that?  My friend's NPDex was able to get this in a court order.  The specialist talked to the kids and the dad one-on-one for a few weeks, then watched them together for a 10-min visit and then gradually lengthened the visits to see what was going on.  In that case, the specialist eventually recommended that all contact be ceased b/c the dad was emotionally damaging them.  I can't see that being the case for you.

Regardless, I'd be very careful if you are telling the children that both parents will still love them even if they love the other parent.  While that is true for *you* it is not true for their mother.  They may not consciously acknowledge that fact, but they know this.  If you gaslight them on something that is very obvious to them, they won't trust you at all.

[ForeverDad]

I recall that Richard Warshak described a program he encouraged called Family Bridges, mentioned in a chapter at the end of his book, Divorce Poison.  It was on his web site as well.  As I recall, he stated it was where the alienated parent and children could have time, like a vacation scenario, to heal the estrangement.  One point he emphasized was that you don't force the alienating parent to pay for any of the process.

[yeeter]

Regardless, I'd be very careful if you are telling the children that both parents will still love them even if they love the other parent.  While that is true for *you* it is not true for their mother.  They may not consciously acknowledge that fact, but they know this.  If you gaslight them on something that is very obvious to them, they won't trust you at all.

The reasoning behind this is that the kids are in a loyalty bind.  Support moms narrative, or else she wont love you (indirectly implied).  So they need to be released to love BOTH parents, and that BOTH parents will love them back.  And it is true - mom will always love them, even if there is uncertainty about that fact.  They need to be given the freedom to love both, and learn/become comfortable with this idea on their own accord (ultimately it is a part of breaking the enmeshment with mom - to where they can form their own independent thought in a way that is 'ok')

[yeeter]

I recall that Richard Warshak described a program he encouraged called Family Bridges, mentioned in a chapter at the end of his book, Divorce Poison.  It was on his web site as well.  As I recall, he stated it was where the alienated parent and children could have time, like a vacation scenario, to heal the estrangement.  One point he emphasized was that you don't force the alienating parent to pay for any of the process.

Yes.  There are conflicting views on Warshaks work.  Once control is fully established by mom, however, what can be done is very very limited.  Limited contact and involvment, and even a court order can not physically 'force' a teenager to participate in counseling in any meaningful way.  Most of the counselors I have engaged with will not take on family counseling without direct support and participation of both parents (and in some cases a court order). 

Note that court orders are pretty worthless.  A judge/court can not 'control' a persons behavior.  There are no repercussions if she undermines or just doesnt follow it with good faith. 

The topic of alienation (arguable if even the right term) is worth a section on this board - since there is high correlation with high conflict divorce, alienation, and personality disorders.

[formflier]

Note that court orders are pretty worthless.  A judge/court can not 'control' a persons behavior.  There are no repercussions if she undermines or just doesnt follow it with good faith.  
 

I'm going to push back a bit on this.

A "well written" court order is gold.  A poorly written one is perhaps worse than not having one at all.  Perhaps.

The key is to realize you don't want to give your pwBPD any "freebies".  Start out with a well written court order with consequences built in.

That way there is no debate over if it was followed or not.

That gives you clarity with the judge that the judge is being blown off (again..no wiggle room is important)

"pwBPD will do X by Y date.  If this is not done Z will happen until X is accomplished."

or something like that.

Best,

FF

[yeeter]

I'm going to push back a bit on this.

A "well written" court order is gold.  A poorly written one is perhaps worse than not having one at all.  Perhaps.

The key is to realize you don't want to give your pwBPD any "freebies".  Start out with a well written court order with consequences built in.

That way there is no debate over if it was followed or not.

That gives you clarity with the judge that the judge is being blown off (again..no wiggle room is important)

"pwBPD will do X by Y date.  If this is not done Z will happen until X is accomplished."

or something like that.

Best,

FF

Yes.  But play this all the way through.  There is a court order that isnt being followed.  The judge can give a 'stern lecture'.  The judge can even change parenting time.  But if a kid refuses to follow the court ordered parenting plan, there is no recourse.

And if a kid doesnt want to do counseling, you can not force them (teenagers).  (even if they show up they might not engage with the process so again relatively little value)

Layer this will Covid delays in the court, and things drag out such that early intervention is out the window.

Feel free to suggest other ideas on what can be written into a court order, but more than one very well respected and experienced attorneys have told me there is little practical value in court orders.  They are not going to put her in jail for alienation.  And its very hard to prove in a way that holds up in court to begin with.

Dont get me wrong I can continue to push for whatever pieces I can.  I am trying to get the kids counseling.  But mom has them convinced counseling is bad (and she herself refuses to participate).  Again a Judge could order counseling for her even, but if she isnt open to it there will be little influence (the nature of NPD is that there is nothing for her to work on, since she doesnt believe she is doing anything to warrant it).  Thus no practical value since there is no change in behavior.

I dont like the answer.  Its just what I am getting from lawyers (and even some counselors).

I welcome an example of something that can be written into a court order as a 'consequence'.  If it genuinely has teeth, I can suggest it to my lawyers ...

[livednlearned]

The reasoning behind this is that the kids are in a loyalty bind.

The way my loyalty bound stepdaughter (BPD mom) was taught to handle this is "you have a right to have a relationship with both parents."

I know she has used that phrase directly with her mom. Although it wasn't until she was living away from home that she had the strength to say that.

[formflier]

But if a kid refuses to follow the court ordered parenting plan, there is no recourse.

 

First of all...this just doesn't ring true.  A child is going to blow off the authorities and they will just shrug and say "oh well"? 

Isn't part of growing up and maturing learning to do things that you don't want to do (but aren't unhealthy/dangerous/abusive).

I mean..what if a child refuses (fill in the blank, such as medical care).

Can you clarify what you mean..because I doubt you intend it the way I'm taking it.


For the language with teeth.

What would you like the end result of the court order to say..what would you like you kids to do/not do...and then we can work back from there.

Best,

FF

[yeeter]

Isn't part of growing up and maturing learning to do things that you don't want to do (but aren't unhealthy/dangerous/abusive).

Yes.  But many times this comes about by a parent establishing guidelines and make kids do what is good for them, not what the kid 'wants' to do.  (homework, going to church, etc).  Now imagine that, at least subvertly, the parent guidance is to not see the other parent (mom is implying that I am dangerous, that I tried to kill her, do not care about her health - because if I do not stay away she 'sees' me line of sight and has a reaction and goes to the ER).  The kids have to sort through all this to form their own opinion, then defy her narrative.

Ultimately the end goal is to get them to a point where they have the freedom to choose and be supported in that choice.  (one of the hardest things in life to do is to defy a manipulative mother).

What would you like the end result of the court order to say..what would you like you kids to do/not do...and then we can work back from there.

Some things I would like:

Counseling directly for the kids.  I feel they could benefit from an outside third party to process and calibrate with.  (they have been locked down in the house with mom for the last year getting her narrative drilled into their heads 24/7)

Family counseling (reunification counseling).  They may choose to not reengage with me, but family counseling would at least reset some baseline interaction

I would like to attend my kids extracurricular activities.  I would like to be involved in decisions regarding education, medical.  Ultimately, I would like to be engages with their lives in some way.

Pretty basic

[kells76]

To add to what yeeter is saying...

But if a kid refuses to follow the court ordered parenting plan, there is no recourse.

We've been through this before, and our experience was:

If a kid refuses to follow the court ordered parenting plan, and the other parent, despite verbiage to the contrary, doesn't really want the kid to see their parent, there is no recourse.

First of all...this just doesn't ring true.  A child is going to blow off the authorities and they will just shrug and say "oh well"?

It takes a bit of time between the kid saying "I'm not going, I'm staying at Mom's, you can't make me" and getting into a courtroom where a judge will say "Mom, you need to find a way to get that child into the car and over to Dad's house."

If yeeter's kids' mom is anything like DH's kids' mom, then after the kid says "I'm not going", Mom says "What can I do? I can't force her get in the car. I'm just listening to her voice. I didn't do anything to influence her. Of course, if she finds out you have a lawyer, she'll hate you even more and never see you. And I have no control over that".

So, while it's not the case that if the authorities saw evidence of visitation refusal, and parental non enforcement of the PP, that they'd shrug and say "oh well"... there's a time lag, and no guaranteed outcome.

What's hard is that middle ground between the visit refusal and the court date. That's a LOT of time for a child's heart and mind to be poisoned. And that's the real battle -- not just enforcement of the PP for its own sake, but the battle for your child to know the truth and not drink the Kool aid. When there's a delay between "I'm not going"/"How can I make her go" and a real authority... it's not nothing to agonize over whether to put the kids in that situation, where for months they will be fed a narrative about you that you're escalating, you want to force them to do things, you don't listen to their voice, you "got a lawyer against your own child" (yes, heard that from one of the kids), you're the villain, Mom is the only one who really listens, Mom cares about your emotions, Mom would never force you to do something traumatic.

Especially when there's no guarantee that in that courtroom with that real authority, there will be any kind of guardrails or consequences or meaningful action against Mom or for the kids. It's a gamble with the kids' hearts and minds. Sometimes it really does turn out, but sometimes it doesn't, and I don't hear about a lot of moms getting real consequences for over-empowering the kids.

Isn't part of growing up and maturing learning to do things that you don't want to do (but aren't unhealthy/dangerous/abusive).

I mean..what if a child refuses (fill in the blank, such as medical care).

That's exactly Dr. Craig Childress' argument in shining light on the really slippery, responsibility-evasive behaviors of the "alienating" parent.

He asserts that the "alienating" parent will typically display "selective competence". That is to say, the AP (generally speaking) regularly ensures that the kids brush their teeth, go to bed on time, go to school, go to the dentist, etc. The AP has parental competence in those areas, and would never say "what can I do... I can't make her go to school... she said she hates it... I'm just listening to her voice".

But, in the one area of visitation, the AP displays remarkable incompetence. Suddenly, the AP simply can't "make" the child do anything, and there's absolutely no solution that will ever be found.

So, yes, ideally, parents would make the kids do things they say they don't want to do.

If the issue were just that the kids don't want to go to yeeter's house, but he and Mom agree they should, then there wouldn't be any issue. They'd team up, tell the kids "this is happening", and that's the end of it.

But that's not the issue. The issue is -- whatever she says, whatever she does, Mom doesn't want the kids to go to yeeter's.

And she'll try to cover it up by making it "something out of her control" -- like her so-called allergic reaction.

And, while Mom may say all the right things to professionals and to the kids ("I really want you to see Dad... I would never stand in your way... I'm bending over backwards to make sure you have a relationship with him, while honoring your true feelings..."), the kids know that what Mom really wants is that they don't go, and that life will be hell for them if they do.

So that's the sticky wicket.

Dr. Childress had some superb articles about that dynamic ("selective incompetence"):

page 21 has a brief mention:

https://drcachildress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pathogenic-Parenting-and-the-Attachment-System-Qustion-Answer-Format-Childress-2012.pdf

this one has a "passive triangulation" section on page 5 that, while oriented towards the issue of badmouthing, would also apply to visitation refusal:

https://drcachildress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Structural-Family-Systems-Constructs-in-Parental-Alienation-Childress-2012.pdf

Here's an example of the "kids need to grow up and learn to do things they don't want to do" situation, but in a toxic/pathological divorce setting:

...the targeted parent may ask the child to complete a standard common household chore, such as emptying the dishwasher. The child balks and argues about the task, displaying an attitude of contemptuous disregard for the parental authority of the targeted parent. The targeted parent then takes away a privilege as discipline for the child’s rude and defiant attitude. When the child returns to the enmeshed/allied parent, the child reports the incident as the targeted parent being overly demanding, strict, and excessively punishing. The enmeshed parent sides with the child and offers an attuned response to the child’s presentation of aggrieved victimization by the other parent. Something like, “Oh, that’s just like your father. He’s always been so demanding and harsh. He’s just impossible to get along with.” This type of response by the enmeshed/allied parent sets the narrative for the child that the targeted parent is “overly harsh” and “impossible to get along with.” This pattern of relational moves supporting the agreed upon narrative will be repeated over-and-over, each time the child returns from visitations with the other parent.
But it is always the child who initiates the complaint, so that the enmeshed/allied parent can then merely adopt the complementary role, the role desired by the enmeshed/allied parent, of the kind, supportive, understanding parent. Through the resonance of the mirror neuron network, the child clearly understands that the enmeshed/allied parent enjoys the child’s criticism of the other parent, and enjoys the role of the kind, supportive, understanding parent in contrast to the bad parenting of the other parent.

(from https://drcachildress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Enmeshed-Relationship-Question-Answer-Format-Childress-2012.pdf)

...

OK, this is getting long! FF, hope this helps shed some light on the difficulties of enforcing PP's / court orders when the other parent is pathological.

cheers

kells76

[kells76]

Finally found it, I think!

4)   Selective Parental Incompetence:  The allied/pathological parent presents as selectively incompetent, typically using the phrase “…what can I do, I can’t make the child…xyz” – for example; “I encourage the child to go on visitations with the other parent, but what can I do, I can’t make the child go if the child doesn’t want to go.” – “I tell the child to cooperate with the other parent, but what can I do, I can’t make the child be nice to the other parent.  I’m not there, how am I supposed to make the child be nice to the other parent?” The presence of this phrase has to do with placing the child into the leadership position so that the narcissistic/(borderline) parent can exploit the child’s symptoms.

from https://drcraigchildressblog.com/2014/06/18/diagnosis/

[formflier]

So...write the guaranteed consequences in the next order...don't wait.

If child doesn't show up at Dad's house, x will happen the first time missed..then bigger..then bigger.

Be very specific about what can get the child out of it, hospitalized due to medical necessity..signed off on by a physician.

If they are sick at one home...they can go to other home and be sick.


Please don't take any of this as me suggesting it will be easy or go smoothly...

Best,

FF

[kells76]

Right, I get what you're saying -- something insanely specific like (and this is all just for example):

Child shall be delivered to Dad's house no earlier than 2:45pm and no later than 3pm Fridays. Dad shall wait inside with blinds drawn. Child shall ring doorbell or knock 3 times. Dad shall turn on porch light. Mom shall leave immediately once child is on porch and light is on. Dad shall let child in 15 seconds after turning on light.

Dad shall drop child off at Mom's house no earlier than 8:15am and no later than 8:30am on the Mondays following the above Fridays. Mom shall wait inside with blinds drawn... etc etc etc (same as above)

If either parent does not follow this order in every respect, then counseling for the children shall begin no later than 1 week after the most recent non-following, and shall be at the "Better Families" practice. Dad shall compile a list of 3 practitioners and Mom shall select one and inform Dad by email within 3 days of Dad providing the list. If Mom does not select one and/or inform Dad by email within 3 days, Dad shall select a practitioner.

Both parents shall abide by any and all recommendations, requirements, etc of the practitioner until such time as the practitioner communicates in writing that such abiding is no longer required. Noncompliance shall result in the noncompliant parent [X, Y, and Z consequences... sorry, running out of specific ideas].

...

Be very specific about what can get the child out of it, hospitalized due to medical necessity..signed off on by a physician.

If they are sick at one home...they can go to other home and be sick.

Yes, this is super common... "oh, they're sick... they can't be moved from my house... they don't want to go in the car". So yeah, if airtight is what we're after, then either "hospitalization with physician signoff" is the only reason to miss visitation, or "time missed due to child illness shall be made up in exactly equal quantity down to a 15 minute increment within 30 calendar days of the last missed day, with days decided upon by the parent who missed time, and no objection possible by the other parent". That last idea should nip in the bud any temptation to misuse "we'll make it up later".

...

It's never easy.

[yeeter]

20 months out of the house and have not yet been to court.  A trial date set in October (that could push).  Covid makes frequent court visits quite unlikely.

And there still is no answer to the kid simply refusing to come.  And refusing to participate in counseling.  As mentioned, more than one counselor said they wont do it without both parents participation and a court order with follow up.  Maybe I get that after trial (approx 2 years later).  Am calling on a regular basis to even find a counselor (all backlogged), but I found one that 'might' have availability.

[formflier]

The incentive/disincentive in the court order has to be such that your ex wants the child to go.

I do agree there isn't a good or easy answer...but there are possibilities.

Best,

FF