Serenity now... sanity later.

[kells76]

My understanding is that sites like Our Family Wizard and CustodyXChange are well known and pretty standard coparenting/scheduling sites.

CXC lists a ton of example schedules, with how it'd look on a calendar. Here's their page on 50/50 examples and the pros/cons of 50/50:

https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/schedules/50-50/7-examples.php

They also have links to other time split examples, with pros and cons listed.

This is a pretty good link, too, on how to make your PT schedule and what to consider in order for it to be legally accepted:

https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/schedules/overview/schedule.php

...

Also, if your county does not list examples, look at counties next to your county, or counties with higher population cities in your state. We are in a larger city in our state but like yours, our county did not list specific parenting schedule examples. I researched many other counties in our state in order to understand that, sigh, what Mom was demanding Dad accept did not match even the bare minimum of any other county around. Also, when COVID hit and Mom wanted us to either not see the kids, or not go to work if we wanted to see the kids (!), I had to reference another county's court system's COVID PT guidelines to again, support our position that no, we were not going to "just not go to work" in order to see the kids, that that was not legally recommended or required. Yay, fun times.

...

Given that you are the one helping the kids with HW (i.e., my understanding is that "mom assigns the HW and leaves, the kids work on HW, and Dad helps with HW") and getting your son educational intervention, one thought is to "ask for more than you think you'll get" and work down from there. That is to say, just because she defines herself as "the one homeschooling the kids" doesn't mean she "owns" seven hours per day of the kids' time. So start/continue thinking of yourself from the "up" position versus the "down" position. Find and frame things you're already doing as showing that you are a very involved father that is an equally valuable parent as Mom. Also, if she's anything like DH's kids' mom, she will weirdly minimize time she already has with the kids doing schooling as "not quality time" and them propose splitting the remaining time in the day with you. I.e., she will say "but because it's educational, it's not either parent's parenting time, so it doesn't count as mine, so in order for it to be even, you get 2 hours per afternoon and I get 2 hours per afternoon with them, then it's a 50/50 split, and also time when they're asleep doesn't count as my parenting time". She may try to both say "homeschooling isn't real parenting time" and "when the kids are asleep isn't real parenting time" but not cede either to you. Just my guess.

If you start by proposing that the kids are with you 75/25, that gives you room to "negotiate down" so she feels like "she's winning time from you" and is "making you lose". Don't start out by suggesting/submitting a PP that is actually what you want. Find a boilerplate example from OFW, CXC, or a county near you, that is more time than you "think is fair" because you need negotiation space. "Worst case scenario" is that she doesn't fight it and the kids are with you more than you planned on, which is a win for them and you can always figure out child care later. Given that your kids are a little older, CC may be less of a concern in your PP time split suggestions.

[Couper]

Thank you very much.  I had no idea about the CXC site.  That really helps paint a more clear picture about what various options look like.

Your other examples don't surprise me.  We both help with the homework part.  She doesn't lift a finger with the outside support part.  What you say about how PT is calculated, I could very much see her doing that (particularly if a lawyer recommended it to her or whatnot).  Also, if homeschool totals three actual hours each day, after this I could see it magically becoming six.  I wish I knew how these other moms in the same curriculum execute their schooling at home -- hours spent per day, working on a real schedule, etc. -- to have some kind of standard to weigh it against.

Child care is not an issue for me.  I work from home and have managed both before.  I can go in when I want to check on them.  They are old enough to heat up their own lunch if they want.  If this were five years ago it may be a little different, but given their ages and how much freedom I have to structure my day, I could do it 100% if that's what I was given. 

[kells76]

I remember having to research this many years ago:

"In trying to equalize a parenting schedule, do you count “sleep time” and “school time” or only “awake time”?"

https://www.fieldsdennis.com/childcustodylawyer

Hopefully you will never need this information.

[Couper]

Hopefully you will never need this information.

Good grief.  Let's hope not!

[ForeverDad]

Equal time status seems be be a big hurdle for IRS filings.  IRS seems to rely on majority of overnights per year to determine which parent gets child refund/credit matters.  IRS form 8332 specifies when a non-custodial parent can claim the children on which years, etc.  Previously it was sufficient for the court order to spell out how each year was addressed.  Not any more.

[Couper]

(Thank you for the above, ForeverDad.)

A few days ago I had my first "real" sit-down with the lawyer.  It was a good 45 minute meeting. We see eye-to-eye on a lot.  He says if I can negotiate the things I asked about above (settlement / payoff, custody, child support, etc.) it is a matter of us hashing things out between ourselves and filing it all with the court.  He was very clear that we want to keep court intervention out as much as possible.  uBPDw does not have the means to hire an attorney and her parents are broke, so I don't know where she'd get any outside support to pursue an aggressive legal angle and, as opposed as she is to a third-party telling her what to do, I think she might just accept an offer and move forward.  He even said child support can be taken care of and paid privately with the right deal.  Yes, I can hear all of you laughing.

If she decided to go nuclear, she would just ruin me and only the lawyers would win.  

The financial aspect does not look as promising as I originally hoped.  Basically, she gets a check for 75%, I get one for 25%, and my other end of it is in retaining this house / shop from where I work and the equity tied up in it belongs to me.  I was hoping to have some kind of cushion when it was all said an done.  Of course now, mortgage rates have shot up, so reworking the loan will make my expenses go up.  I asked him to work up some kind of idea of what he would see my child support obligations being and he said he would email that to me.  Maybe my cash flow levels out if I unload some of my old obligations that get replaced with child support.

The only thing that even allows me to consider all of this is selling my out of state property.  I'm not supposed to call the lawyer again until I have a deal inked on that (I guess because he knows otherwise, I'm sunk).  After a lot of conferring with my dad, we both came up with a price that was very close.  I presented that to the buyer tonight and, pending inspection, she was enthusiastic about it (which then makes me think I left money on the table, but maybe not).  There is a good payday from it, but most all of it will go to uBPDw to buy my freedom.  That place needs a better owner than me, but it still stings being the one to sell the old family property after almost 90 years.  A place that she knew before getting married was very important to me, paid me lip service about supporting my wishes with it, and then turned around and spent the last 14 years spewing nothing but hate about it.  She'll be happy to collect on it, though, and will probably feel entitled to 100% of it.  Money has always been more important to her than me.  

My mind has been going a dozen different directions all week from longing to be free, to hoping I don't wind up living in a cardboard box -- to cherishing all the alone time I get with my kids, to hoping they don't hate me after the fact.  Of course, now I've temporarily lost my philosophical side again and ask myself endlessly what I did do to deserve all of this?  My intentions have always been pure.  I just wanted a happy nuclear family like my grandparents raised and instead I've been living under the boot heel of someone that hates herself more than she hates me.  I guess I'm just thankful that I'm not caught in the middle like some by feeling any affection for her.  There is zero.  I think what I've finally decided is that I'm just going to keep putting one foot in front of the other until I get to the finish line because if I don't, I know what the rest of my life is going to look like and it isn't pretty.

On Monday I take my son to the educational therapist I've been talking to.  He took it well when I told him.  It's something she should have been enthusiastic about doing together, but all I can see when I close my eyes and think about the times I brought it up are all the times she few into a disordered rage and accused me of only wanting to do it to make her feel stupid... except this last time because now I guess she's following the orders of these rescuers who have all the good intentions that she always accused me of never having.        

[kells76]

He even said child support can be taken care of and paid privately with the right deal.  Yes, I can hear all of you laughing.

As insane as it sounds, DH and the kids' mom do this and it works. It is kind of unbelievable that it works, but it does. It does mean that she gets more $$ than she would if it went through the state (because the government wants its cut  ) so that is probably the motivation.

Not sure if you'll need it, but keep the idea because it could be a good negotiation point for you.

[Couper]

As insane as it sounds, DH and the kids' mom do this and it works. It is kind of unbelievable that it works, but it does. It does mean that she gets more $$ than she would if it went through the state (because the government wants its cut  ) so that is probably the motivation.

Not sure if you'll need it, but keep the idea because it could be a good negotiation point for you.

That's a very good point because once the parasite class is involved, everyone wants their cut and the overhead just goes up and up.  The world is now littered with non-producers that want their slice of the pie.

He was also pointing out that if the court is set to decide, they can decide things in a much more unfavorable way and maybe that's part of their motivation -- that their cut is based on a percentage of their ruling.  Just guessing, all of this is very new to me. 

[kells76]

Right. So if part of your W's "currency" is actual currency, and/or how it makes her feel (like she "won more" from you), then it's a good negotiating piece to have. "Sure, we could agree to County Plan X, but if we can agree to Our Family Plan Y, then you will get $N more per month than with Plan X, it's up to you"

So you don't "let her know" that the court might decide parenting time in a way that is worse for you (even though maybe that's connected to less $ for her if CS goes thru court). You DO let her know that the court might decide child support in a way that is worse for her, so you incentivize her to cooperate with "out of court settlement" instead (without telling her that settling out of court is more favorable for your PT).

Any and all mediation, negotiation, settlement, etc, out of court, has to be framed as how it's better for her. Saying anything is better for you will get instant rejection, and trying to convince her something is better for the kids turns into a war of "who is the better parent, I am because I know the kids better than you, I'm the mom, blah blah blah". It all has to be "how agreeing on this is a win for you ".

[Couper]

Right. So if part of your W's "currency" is actual currency, and/or how it makes her feel (like she "won more" from you), then it's a good negotiating piece to have. "Sure, we could agree to County Plan X, but if we can agree to Our Family Plan Y, then you will get $N more per month than with Plan X, it's up to you"

So you don't "let her know" that the court might decide parenting time in a way that is worse for you (even though maybe that's connected to less $ for her if CS goes thru court). You DO let her know that the court might decide child support in a way that is worse for her, so you incentivize her to cooperate with "out of court settlement" instead (without telling her that settling out of court is more favorable for your PT).

Any and all mediation, negotiation, settlement, etc, out of court, has to be framed as how it's better for her. Saying anything is better for you will get instant rejection, and trying to convince her something is better for the kids turns into a war of "who is the better parent, I am because I know the kids better than you, I'm the mom, blah blah blah". It all has to be "how agreeing on this is a win for you ".

I get it and think you are 100% right about all of it.  Fortunately, I think the lawyer gets that, too.  I'm a pretty direct and fair person so having to play a game like this is just more acting to me and I'm not an actor.  Hopefully, he can take this approach and run with it.

She's going to think that we should be able to part ways and her lifestyle will not change and that simply cannot be.  That will be the hardest part.  It's like the life insurance thing I spelled out before.  Damn everybody else, it's all about her perceived needs, yet she would be outraged if she had to offer to anyone what she expects from everyone else.   

[kells76]

She's going to think that we should be able to part ways and her lifestyle will not change and that simply cannot be. 

That makes me wonder if coming up with 2 or 3 proposals might be the way to go.

Proposal 1, she "loses" 10% of current $.
Proposal 2, she "loses" 20% of current $.
Proposal 3, she "loses" 30% of current $.

But, you have already decided that any of the 3 proposals work for you. This puts the decision in her hands -- she is going to want to "punish" you and will select Plan #1, but you have already decided you can field that, and it's more that once again, you are creating a scenario where ultimately you get what's workable for you, but in a way where she feels like she is "getting the best of you".

I do this with the kids sometimes -- "Do you want to clean the bathroom now, or in 15 minutes, or in 30 minutes?" Not cleaning the bathroom isn't an option that is even on the table, so the kids get caught up in picking "the best option" and agree to cleaning the bathroom in the process of trying to get the best deal for themselves.

[Couper]

That makes me wonder if coming up with 2 or 3 proposals might be the way to go.

Proposal 1, she "loses" 10% of current $.
Proposal 2, she "loses" 20% of current $.
Proposal 3, she "loses" 30% of current $.

Your approach is right and the lawyer understands that I can't take on any kind of deal that I can't meet financially, but once he starts talking, it sounds like there are a lot of unknowns and that bad financial deals occasionally happen.

I'm not sure how three proposals would work in terms of her having to decide.  She can't even decide the most mundane things in her regular day-to-day life.

[kells76]

I'm not sure how three proposals would work in terms of her having to decide.

Oh, that is well understood here 

Typically if I have to make a time sensitive decision and the kids' mom needs to be involved (i.e. I am taking the kids to something on her time), I phrase it as:

"Hi Kids' Mom, does it work for your schedule if SD14 does X activity next Thursday from 5-6? If I don't hear back from you by Saturday evening, I'll assume it's just fine! Have a great day, kells76"

So you can do the same in any proposal or as an overarching umbrella for all proposals:

"Mr. Couper presents proposals A, B, and C. Mrs. Couper may select whichever proposal she prefers and shall email Mr. Couper and Lawyers with the selection by 10 p.m. on Day, Date. If Mr. Couper and Lawyers have not received an email by 10 p.m. on Day, Date, then Mr. Couper shall select a proposal."

Convert her non-compliance and stonewalling and footdragging into her making a choice. I.e., non-response is a response that frees you to do what you see fit.

[Couper]

Convert her non-compliance and stonewalling and footdragging into her making a choice. I.e., non-response is a response that frees you to do what you see fit.

Wow, you're really good at this.  Can I just hire you?

You must be a saint to have taken on all that you have in your life.  I can't imagine willfully walking into a situation like you have. 

[kells76]

Wow, you're really good at this.  Can I just hire you?

Well, I had a lot to learn, and people here like Livednlearned, david, ForeverDad, Panda39, all those old timers,  , taught me so much.

Not sure there is a pay rate that could adequately compensate me for adding more BPD to my life  though I toy with the idea now and then of doing independent consulting. But then I think about the drama. And then I think instead -- maybe DH and I will build a cabin in the woods away from people and live there forever with no internet. Yes, I think we'll do that.

I can't imagine willfully walking into a situation like you have.

I had no idea what I was walking into, which helps when walking into stuff like this.

[Couper]

I had no idea what I was walking into, which helps when walking into stuff like this.

I'm so sorry!  I guess I was operating under the assumption that since it had already gone through one cycle, that it was all hashed out before you arrived on the scene.

Yes, cabin in the woods... with a moat around it... and maybe add some alligators!

[livednlearned]

uBPDw does not have the means to hire an attorney and her parents are broke, so I don't know where she'd get any outside support to pursue an aggressive legal angle and, as opposed as she is to a third-party telling her what to do, I think she might just accept an offer and move forward.

pwBPD don't necessarily pursue an aggressive legal angle. That's not what ends up costing many of us a fortune.

What costs money is usually a consequence of stonewalling.

I gave my n/BPDx the house. Gave it to him.

That cost me multiple trips to court, just trying to compel n/BPDx to refinance the house. There were two contempts of court connected to it and it ended with me hiring a real estate attorney on top of my family law attorney.

He stonewalled me giving him the house.

n/BPDx was an attorney himself, and he ended up refinancing the house with a bank but didn't roll in the home equity. Instead, he wrote a hand-written note saying the home equity wasn't included in the refi but it wouldn't be a problem for me legally because he would make sure it wasn't.

Right.

The point being that you will have to do your best to make use of any leverage you have to avoid stonewalling. If she cares about money, then hope she cares about it more than staying negatively engaged, which for some people, is better than not being engaged at all. That's what stonewalling is. Negative engagement.

Leverage could be what kells76 suggested. It could also be: if both parties agree to sign this proposal by day/date, Mrs. Couper will receive a lump sum of $ by day/date. Any agreement after this date will be dispensed in payments of $ monthly until day/date.

Think really really hard about how to structure the terms and pace of your negotiation, and how you present it. Maybe you set the attorney up to be the bad guy, the one who is pushing hard for this and that -- my attorney even suggested I do this in the early stages of my divorce.

You can also do this with the state, setting things up so that she understands that money you want going to her is going to the state. "I guess if we do it this way, the state gets a cut of this money that should be going to you."

And like kells76 suggested, hold something back so you can give her a win when she fusses that she isn't getting enough. The need to be in a one-up position is often very powerful. Allow her to feel that she is winning something so that you can lose less.

Your attorney is probably not motivated to set the negotiation up to the degree you need it given the pathology involved. You'll have to think carefully about how many steps are necessary and what each one should include to minimize the stonewalling.

[Couper]

That's what stonewalling is. Negative engagement.

I've told her in the past that she craves negative reinforcement.  That must be the same thing.  It's one of the tools in her toolbox.  Thank you for all the sound advice.

She will never have seen so much money in her life and I have to keep the house or else my business is sunk, so in this case it's kind of the opposite of your deal.  Even if I walked away from it, she couldn't pay the note on this place, let alone maintain it.  These people in this rescuer church will probably rally around her and find her somewhere cheaper than market price to live and maybe even throw a pity job at her.  

A big part of me wishes I would have done all this a year ago, but at that point not all the stars had aligned.  I guess things happen in their own time for a reason.  A year ago, mentally she was in a horrible state, but she probably would have been a true nightmare to deal with then.  Now she seems much more accepting of things after six months with this "prayer minister".  She knows something is coming.  I have stated explicitly that I am unhappy and feel nothing for her.  I have been consistent with zero affection for years.  Maybe she has it in her head enough to just go and run away to her new support system.

However, she is still not repentant and I believe all the old demons still lurk.  In the rare exchange we had the other night, I told her that I can't see past 14 years of all the rages and meltdowns and false accusations that have happened in the past and she did not show one ounce of remorse, so I know she is not truly fixed.  I'm sure in her distorted mind, all of it was justified.      

[livednlearned]

It's tough, I know.

The main challenge for you will be focusing on what is about to happen not what has happened.

If your relationship is over, the past and what she will or won't do next is no longer your concern unless it is related to the disentanglement of your marriage financially.

It's an eyes open time. My example of giving away the house is meant to illustrate how intrinsic stonewalling is to the process. You could give your wife all your money and the house and it will still likely be an order of magnitude more difficult than anticipated.

Lawyers do not help with this part, it's not in the interests to help.

The negative engagement is driven by traits of the disorder. Terrible things happening to her is probably important to her belongingness to her spiritual group, and that is important to her sense of victimhood, an identity she likely clings to out of maladaptive coping mechanisms.

So this divorce may feel existential.

She will mine this abandonment for something equally important to her as money and that's where the challenges can surface.

The more you can focus on how her underlying BPD logic will impact the divorce, the less conflict you'll have. You won't have no conflict, but you can have less. Whether she repents or not (likely not) is a ship that has sailed if divorce is all but certain for you both.

When you feel the bile in the back of your throat rising about what she has done or is doing, check yourself. Think about what motivates that behavior and then apply that knowledge to the upcoming stages of your divorce.

Does that make sense?

If you are hoping she will repent or make this easy, the last 14 years should be your roadmap as to what to expect next.

[Couper]

Does that make sense?

Perfect sense.  I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.  I am under no illusion that repentance is coming or that I expect it (or for that matter, even want it).  What I meant to convey is this new image of herself is a facade.  It's coupled to this idea that she's going to live as the image of what a godly woman should be and it's supposed to erase my memory of all that was.  That is simply not going to happen.  When coupled to the fact that there is no repentance, I know it's all just a sham.

I think you have nailed negative engagement.  What I saw and called out years ago was self-sabotaging any situation in life, large or small, so she could claim her victimhood.  I'm curious to see how being presented with the divorce itself may actually appeal to her on some level.  Amongst her support group, she will have attained a level of victim status like she has never known before.  

Thank you for taking the time to explain these different strategies to me.
      

[kells76]

I'll add a "big picture view" comment here, in addition to LnL's wise advice & perspective.

I'm seeing multiple strands in what you are and will be dealing with, each one with "micro" and "macro" levels:

1. untangling the marriage, including: separation, divorce, lawyers/legal stuff, reaching finality with court orders, untangling finances

2. parenting your children post-divorce, including: combatting parental alienation-type behaviors/"pathogenic parenting" from their mom, learning and doing non-intuitive ("jiu-jitsu") parenting, building your skills at validating them appropriately

3. having a coparenting relationship with your kids' mom, including: how to minimize conflict, how to stick to the PP when she won't, how to make it the "least worst" coparenting possible (sigh, notice I don't say "best" as that isn't always an option), using BIFF for coparenting communications, separating your thoughts/feelings about her as your partner from how you treat her as a coparent

4. doing work on grieving/processing your marriage, including: what you had wanted, what drew you to that relationship, what you contributed to the challenges, what you were not responsible for, possible family of origin questions, working with your experience of feeling "duped"/"tricked"

Like LnL was getting at, you will be least effective in any area when you allow feelings about one area to bleed over into another. It can be difficult for some people to stop their anger, grief, sadness, and resentment about how their partner treated them, from impacting the coparenting relationship. "Why should I treat him/her with respect when I pick up the kids? He/she always blamed me and put me down for no reason" type stuff.

You will be most effective in all areas when you "keep stuff in its own lane", as LnL was getting at:

When you feel the bile in the back of your throat rising about what she has done or is doing, check yourself. Think about what motivates that behavior and then apply that knowledge to the upcoming stages of your divorce.

Whatever big energy you feel about how she treated you, just for example -- either channel the energy and its content to somewhere you can process it, like a thread on the Detaching board, or a counselor, or -- recognize the energy, separate it from the content, and use that burst of energy to positively build up another area. If the energy associated with "what she did" stays connected to concrete memories of "what she did", yet isn't directed towards "processing how I feel and think about what she did", and instead both get pointed towards, for example, coming up with a parenting plan, or interacting with her at an exchange, things get really toxic.

So, like I've seen you doing already here with separating this thread (which might be category #1 of "untangling the marriage") from your homeschooling thread (which might be category #2 or #3 or both, depending on how things go), I'd encourage you to continue to name/identify/have awareness of the different channels for your thoughts and energy and efforts right now.

When those lines get blurry, or when we aren't intentional about recognizing the energy behind a memory/thought and working with it, we end up sabotaging ourselves. I think you're a person who values integrity, so I could see you as someone who has the capacity to be honest looking inside himself, and saying, "You know, I told myself that my hurt at her unjust behavior wasn't impacting what I said to her in front of the kids at pickup, but if I'm being honest with myself, it did", for example.

I think this might be getting rambl-y, so I'll go to the next point -- the macro vs micro levels, which again, LnL was highlighting.

For category 1, "micro" is stuff like I tend to focus on: exact wording, details to watch out for, clauses to put in, specific PPs to look at. LnL is pointing out the bigger picture: to get ANY kind of agreement or compromise or plan signed, you have to know big picture what drives and motivates your W. Additionally, you have to remember... BPD is a disorder. Being fair, offering more, being "the bigger person", believing she will see what truly benefits her, hoping she will put the kids first -- probably not going to happen. The best thing big picture you can do is build in natural consequences/outcomes/"bowling bumpers" so that if/when she acts disordered, it doesn't derail your life. Yeah, she may never see that much $$$ again in her life, but it's her feeling in that millisecond moment that she will prioritize above all, and even if you offered her all that and more, if she feels lower than you, she'll shoot herself in the foot rather than be agreeable. So, that's the macro view -- making decisions and writing wording, doing all that micro stuff, with the macro guiding it.

Same for parenting the kids -- there will moments where they say stuff like "Mom says you always yelled at her and hated her". So you're dealing with a micro moment. It is so tempting to JADE and defend ourselves, to "tell the kids the facts", to "set the record straight". But there will probably be an active, though possibly covert and/or unconscious (though it's the same effect either way) to undermine your parenting and have Mom be "the chosen parent". It is SO imperative to not take the bait in the micro level and to think long term about trust building with your kids. Reject the impulse to say "I never yelled at her, in fact, Mom was the one yelling at me, and I have all the recordings to prove it". The jiu-jitsu move is to center how your kids are feeling: "Honey, how did you feel when Mom said that to you?" THAT is what will build trust and counter the poison, more than any "facts" or "record".

...

I know this is a lot, just wanted to talk about some bigger structural stuff, like keeping different work areas in their lanes, and knowing that detail and big picture need to be balanced to be effective.

Wrapping up for now...

kells76

[Couper]

I know this is a lot, just wanted to talk about some bigger structural stuff, like keeping different work areas in their lanes, and knowing that detail and big picture need to be balanced to be effective.

Thank you for all of this.  It will be valuable to reference back to in the future as things move along.  No doubt, the situation will be dynamic and ever-changing.  Certainly not what I envisioned doing with my life in middle-age.

[ForeverDad]

My ex didn't have the money for a lawyer.  No problem, I'm sure she signed a agreement that their fees would be deducted from the equity she would receive from the sale of our house.  I bought her out so I paid cash as her share of the accumulated equity.

My ex could not handle choices I offered her.  One time she she was to get our child then the next day was my holiday time.  She couldn't decide which of my offers to choose and so she blurted out she'd just keep him.  Not possible, but it was then I realized I should have just told her how I would handle it.  The less a pwBPD gets to choose from you, the less likely it can go sideways.

I often write the we here in support are typically very fair people, it's one of our fine qualities.  However, when dealing with these sorts of acting-out behaviors and perspectives, our sense of fairness is a downside.  So beware of your otherwise great sense of super-fairness and super niceness, it can sabotage negotiations.  Court doesn't care whether you are fair, nice or not.  And your ex will likely get a more than fair outcome.

A saying I've repeated regarding court... The person behaving poorly seldom faces consequences and the person behaving well seldom gets credit.

[Couper]

I often write the we here in support are typically very fair people, it's one of our fine qualities.  However, when dealing with these sorts of acting-out behaviors and perspectives, our sense of fairness is a downside.  So beware of your otherwise great sense of super-fairness and super niceness, it can sabotage negotiations.  

Court doesn't care whether you are fair, nice or not.  And your ex will likely get a more than fair outcome.

Believe me, I totally get this, but I know it's also a reminder that needs to be repeated.  It's too easy to look the other way.

I think the lawyer gets where the dividing line is.  In this county, there is only one judge for this and he seems to understand how she operates and how the larger system operates hence his warning that we want to settle this ourselves because the court stands a very good chance of doing something that is not in our interest.  That said, I'll see what more he has to say.  I was a bit discouraged that he said with my out-of-state property (that I have owned since well before she came along) that he would just split the proceeds 50/50.  I have owned that place 33% without her and 66% with.  In my thinking she would get half of the 66%, but the 33% is mine.  As it's going, there isn't going to be much of anything left for me.  Fairness to someone else is one thing, but I also don't think it's right to be unfair to myself.

We didn't even get to dividing up the time with the kids and I have no vision for what that would look since homeschool would continue and she will have to get some kind of job.  I would do the ultimate "unfair" thing and take them 100% of the time if I could but I know that wouldn't happen.  She can't even stand for me to take them out of town overnight as it is (she uses them as a crutch) so I could see an ugly battle coming over that.

I'm miserable with all of this.  Just so damn miserable.  I can't see riding it out another eight years yet I still can't see how any of this will go.  He said if she were to cooperate (ha ha) the whole thing could be settled and done in 90 days, but I have a hard time seeing it going down like that, especially since I still have a property to sell.  Even uBPDw said recently, "This is no way to live".  It makes me wish someone would come along and sweep her off her feet and she would run away.  It seems like from the posts on this forum that the only ones that run away are the ones that have partners that don't want them to.

Sorry, just venting.  I know most of that doesn't merit a response.

[GaGrl]

Why are you assuming that homeschooling would continue?

[Couper]

Why are you assuming that homeschooling would continue?

Several reasons:

I don't outright object to all of it.

There are things I don't like about public school.

Trying to end it would take legal action on my part and set off WW III.

With all the other transitions that will happen, I don't want the upset for my kids.


I would be better with it if there were some sort of outside review.  In my state, homeschooled kids are not subject to outside review if the homeschool teacher has a teaching degree and certificate (which uBPDw does).  However, as they get into higher grades, I think some kind of outside review might start to kick in.  If not, I want something added to my agreement.  This is something I plan to discuss with the educational therapist I'm taking my son to on Monday (sorry, that is a different thread if you haven't been following along).

[GaGrl]

OK, I get that rationale.

Could your parenting/custody agreement included a requirement that certain states mandated tests be passed at age or competent y levels? That way, if your son is okay in science and language arts, great! But if he has numeracy issues and is struggling with math, you have an opening for other services.

[Couper]

OK, I get that rationale.

Could your parenting/custody agreement included a requirement that certain states mandated tests be passed at age or competent y levels? That way, if your son is okay in science and language arts, great! But if he has numeracy issues and is struggling with math, you have an opening for other services.

That's what I'm hoping but it's a question for the lawyer or other entity.  Now that they are moving beyond elementary age, I want to ensure that if there is more they can do that will help them get into college, that it will be done.  I don't want them graduating because "mommy said they passed" and institutions can slam the door on them.

You know, last night I tried to search for what happens when a homeschooling mom isn't up to snuff and found nothing.  The only results that come up are moms propping up moms on mommy blogs saying "you are enough even if nobody says you are!", but you know there have to be plenty more like her that are falling short.