PC to File a Report to the Court

[mama-wolf]

The last month or so has been quite a roller coaster with uBPDxw.  A little over a month ago, with our daughter about to turn 13, she had sent me a message asking if I would engage with her about various co-parenting topics .  She asked if I would discuss with her and just see where we disagree, or if I was willing to have a parents only session with the family therapist.  I opted for working with the family therapist...and in session that evening uBPDxw informed the therapist she was quitting family therapy.  She said the kids and I could continue working with her, but on my custodial time and at my sole expense.

The family T made it clear she was willing to continue working with me and the kids if that's what I wanted, and I did.  I escalated the matter to the PC mostly because for an entire week after that session, uBPDxw never actually communicated to me that she had quit family therapy.  I stressed that I very much wanted to continue family therapy, to include some updated goals for the kids working on their relationship, and providing a therapeutic space to S9 who goes between our households.  I also expressed to the PC that while I don't expect him to get involved with the financial question, I had every intention of taking uBPDxw to court to pay for her portion of the unreimbursed medical expenses, and that since I was not agreeing to her imposed condition on continuing the therapy I understood he as the PC would have do issue a directive that I can continue with the family T.

In parallel, to keep things very clear as far as uBPDxw's consent, the family T had us both complete new paperwork with her office.  She gave specific instructions for uBPDxw to specify that she consents to family therapy continuing, just without her active participation.  Unfortunately, uBPDxw equivocated with her wording in both email communications and on the paperwork, and she has portrayed the situation as me initiating a new therapy process with the family T, essentially changing the family T's role.  Last week, the family T indicated that ethically she can now no longer work with our family--not now, and not in the future.

I was so distraught last week, I barely knew what to do.  Suddenly this pillar of support that has been in place for over three years is gone.  uBPDxw's actions have caused the unilateral termination of a therapeutic relationship for my kids (and me). And now, because our custody order states we will specifically work with this family T--she is named in the document--and will follow her recommendations, the PC informed us at the end of last week that he is going to have to file a Report to the Court for guidance on next steps.

My L thinks this may end up working out in my favor since we have been under this temporary custody order since I filed for a change back at the end of 2019.  But the stress and uncertainty now is almost more than I can handle (on top of finding out earlier this month that my mom is terminally ill with leukemia).

Just posting here for some thoughts on how this sort of thing goes when a Report to the Court is filed, and for general encouragement/support to get through this.

@kells76, it turns out your instincts may have been right when you asked in my last thread whether uBPDxw has started seeing someone.  I ran into a friend a little over a week ago who had recently seen uBPDxw out with a "new friend," and she said they have apparently been seeing each other since January.  Given the ramp up in her behavior lately, I suspect this new situation has prompted shame, embarrassment, resentment, etc. for uBPDxw, encouraging her to push boundaries even more.

mw

[mama-wolf]

It took several days, but I just got the report that the PC filed.  On the surface, it seems to be clear that the current situation is uBPDxw's doing.  I just really hope the court sees it that way.  The main points of the order state (in summary):

1.  The consent order names Family T as the party the family will work with, and that they will follow Family T's recommendations.  uBPDxw has withdrawn her consent from Family T continuing to serve, and therefore Family T has been forced to cease serving.

2. The PC is not able to resolve the issues in the case, specifically family therapy, which is a core component of the consent order.  The PC needs the Court's assistance to address all current and anticipated issues surrounding termination of family therapy, as the current order is essentially inapplicable without it.

3. uBPDxw is not complying with a decision of the PC or terms of the custody order (specifically, uBPDxw withdrew from family therapy, in contravention of the consent order).

4. PC is requesting his appointment be modified for good cause because PC has maintained a positive, collaborative approach with Family T and her forced withdrawal renders continued efficacy of the PC in doubt.

The email exchanges between PC and Family T that were attached as additional evidence also support that the current situation is a result of uBPDxw's actions.  I'm just still anxious about the possible outcomes of the upcoming hearing...

mw

[sterlingblue]

Thanks for sharing this, mama-wolf.  I have therapy drama in my D case as well, and I can foresee something like this happening in my future.

What does "PC" stand for?

[mama-wolf]

PC is the abbreviation for Parent Coordinator.  In cases of high-conflict divorce (especially where there has been abuse), and where there is shared legal custody, it can be a good idea to have a PC in place to help prevent gridlock.  I'm not very fond of ours, but then again I'm not really supposed to be.  He has definitely helped contain some of uBPDxw's worst behavior and enabled decisions to move forward in the best interests of my kids, so I still feel like pushing for his appointment was one of the best decisions I made in the divorce process.

[formflier]

Uggg...major hugs and support coming your way.

Sigh...the process continues. 

How are you doing at "holding up" through all this?  Have you changed any of your self care routines?

Do you understand why the family T can't continue ever in the future?  That is the only thing I was questioning as accurate.

I mean...let's assume the court says Family T continues...I can't imagine how it is in best interests of the kids to start a completely new arrangement.  Of course if for some reason the existing T can't continue...continuing with a new T would then likely be the "healthiest" course of action.

But...staying with current situation seems to be MASSIVELY better for the child than starting a new relationship.

Remember...this is a marathon.  Please keep yourself healthy and alert!

Best,

FF

[mama-wolf]

Thank you FF...I appreciate the support.

My self care has decreased a bit, such as not doing the short workouts I had been doing and discontinuing the mindfulness meditation series I had recently started.  I'm not sure when I'll get back to any of that.  Between all of this and my mom's hospitalization for leukemia...the motivation and energy are just gone.

As far as the family T, I believe part of the issue is that she will very likely have to testify in court now...at the very least to provide her clinical assessment on whether the current custody order is in the best interests of the kids.  I tend to think that her testimony will result in uBPDxw no longer trusting her and never being able to work with her in therapy again.  I also tend to fear that her testimony may result in the same things for me.  I think the former is more likely, but you never know.

If we do end up moving forward with a different family T, my question for my L was how do we prevent ourselves from ending up here again.  Even if uBPDxw agrees to it in the beginning, what prevents her from withdrawing her consent in 1, 2, or 3 years and derailing us all yet again.  I get that contempt of court can be a deterrent, but with her impulsivity I have no faith that it will be enough...and once the damage is done, it can't necessarily be undone (as in this situation).

I do try to do at least the minimum to take care of myself, and will be getting away with the kids for a vacation next week.  I'm really hoping it's at least somewhat restorative.

mw

[kells76]

If we do end up moving forward with a different family T, my question for my L was how do we prevent ourselves from ending up here again.  Even if uBPDxw agrees to it in the beginning, what prevents her from withdrawing her consent in 1, 2, or 3 years and derailing us all yet again.  I get that contempt of court can be a deterrent, but with her impulsivity I have no faith that it will be enough...and once the damage is done, it can't necessarily be undone (as in this situation).

That's key. If uBPDxw has the power, just in saying "I don't consent any more", to terminating T at any point... then she's not going to want to give up that control over you and the kids. This seems insane to give the person with the least buy-in to T the most power in saying "well I just don't like it anymore and I don't want you to do it".

Am I remembering right that you guys have joint legal decisionmaking about mental health? I feel like there was a more detailed setup than that.

[mama-wolf]

That's key. If uBPDxw has the power, just in saying "I don't consent any more", to terminating T at any point... then she's not going to want to give up that control over you and the kids. This seems insane to give the person with the least buy-in to T the most power in saying "well I just don't like it anymore and I don't want you to do it".

Am I remembering right that you guys have joint legal decisionmaking about mental health? I feel like there was a more detailed setup than that.

Yes, we have split legal custody, covering all decision making on health, education, etc. and the PC weighs in when there is gridlock.  My hope is to walk away with full legal custody and decision-making for both kids after this.  As well as retaining physical custody for D13 (without any required visitation with uBPDxw).  I would prefer to have full custody of S9 as well, but I think there is a lot less justification in the eyes of the court, and I also know that would cause its own complications since I think he should still have some level of relationship with uBPDxw and her family.

mw

[kells76]

Yeah... if the therapy is helpful for the kids, and you don't agree to terminating with this practitioner, it just strikes me as so wrong for ONE parent of the two legal decision makers to effectively have "full custody" type decision making... through a loophole.

But am I remembering another issue correctly, that the T said there was an ethical issue with her continuing to provide FT after xW "withdrew consent"? Is that because if both you and xW share legal custody, then the T can't legally provide services if both parents aren't in agreement?

If you ended up with full legal decision making, would that T the be able to "come back" and work with your family? Or is this a "can't ever again no matter what" type of termination?

I know things move slowly, but if you "soon" got legal custody (or, might be easier, "tiebreaker" / full legal on mental health but kept joint legal for edu/med etc), then can you just "hit pause" on FT for now but "soon" go back after a legal decision? Probably a question for your L...

[mama-wolf]

You know, I don't think she realized her actions would result in the complete termination of family therapy.  She just figured she would get out of having to participate in a process that wasn't getting her what she wanted, and get out of having to have any financial responsibility for it (even though our order says she pays 30% of medical expenses).

But that's the issue...she didn't think it through.  And because she insisted on portraying it as a new therapy process--which it isn't--she was trying to force the family T into a new role.  You are right that there was an ethics argument in the family T's reasoning for not being able to continue with us.  Whether that's because the family T couldn't proceed without appearing to agree with uBPDxw's new characterization of her role, or because she knows she will have to testify in court and any engagement with us at this point could put that testimony in jeopardy...I'm not sure.  Maybe both, or maybe some other reason I'm not familiar with.

Ultimately, yes this is very much a "never again no matter what" type of termination.  The family T was pretty clear on that point.  Which was pretty devastating for me.  That uBPDxw could have the ability to do that to my children and to me...immediate termination of a therapeutic relationship with no opportunity for closure.  At least she can't do that with my individual T, but the abandonment it triggered is still pretty bad.

I will definitely be leaning on my L for guidance on how this needs to play out as far as future decision making...

mw

[PeteWitsend]

Not sure if this helps, but in my divorce decree, I insisted on the therapist we'd take our D to being defined and binding on both parties, b/c I knew BPDxw liked to "forum shop" for T's until she found one that patronized her and went along with her allegations and complaints without question.

She pushed back on this, but I've been able to keep the same T for our D b/c everyone involved agrees that continuity and establishing a working relationship is necessary for effective counseling and therapy.  So her attempts to leave the T undesignated and up to her sole discretion haven't gotten any traction.

Each party is free to take our daughter to counseling with the T whenever, but we each bear 100% of the costs of our visits.  So that's also put a cap on XW dragging our daughter there.  Indeed, after a couple visits, she angrily informed me it was useless and she wasn't going back.  I've continued with somewhat regular visits over the years.

[mama-wolf]

Not sure if this helps, but in my divorce decree, I insisted on the therapist we'd take our D to being defined and binding on both parties, b/c I knew BPDxw liked to "forum shop" for T's until she found one that patronized her and went along with her allegations and complaints without question.

That's part of why we are where we are today...this family T was specifically named in our custody order.  I guess maybe the difference is that we had no language in the order that specified uBPDxw couldn't withdraw consent.

Continuity and having that working relationship have been key to the stability the kids and I have had these last couple of years.  One of my top priorities is to ensure uBPDxw can't jeopardize that again.

I'm glad the financial arrangement worked on your end!  I tend to think uBPDxw believes I'm using the therapy against her, which is probably why she wants me to pay for it all.   Plus, she already wants me to pay for everything--and I don't receive any child support.  I make more than she does, but even under the current arrangement having D13 with me full-time, she would owe some.  I have left that alone for the time being just to avoid stirring the pot, but my patience has been wearing thin there.

mw

[zachira]

Therapists involved in family therapy to help with parenting or custody evalutions when parents are divorced or are in the process of divorcing can lose their license if involved in dual roles. The therapist in your case can have one of these roles: 1) being a custody evaluator in which case the therapist has to see both parents and only performs the custody evaluation. 2) is court ordered to provide therapy to both parents and the children, and cannot provide therapy to only one parent. Can participate in giving an opinion to the court about what he/she thinks would be in the best interests of the children for custody though does not have the stature of a custody evaluator. 3) Can be a therapist for one parent and the children, if the parent has full legal right to do so or when legally required gets the permission of the other parent for the therapy.

[livednlearned]

Do you get the sense that the T is genuinely hitting a legal snafu here and is seeking the court's input in order to interpret the ambiguity?

Or, conversely, that she may be done and this is a loophole out ...

Or she senses this could be a step toward sole legal decision-making for you, with the understanding that this is chronic high-conflict that is best handled with one reasonable parent managing thereutic/health, etc?

Or a combination of the above?

My hope is to walk away with full legal custody and decision-making for both kids after this.

Does your L see a path forward for this based on this recent withdrawal of consent (I'm not sure why it's phrased that way given the action taken and your PC characterizing it in what seem like clear terms).

I panicked when my PC filed a motion to be removed. Slightly different than what you're facing, but there seem to be similarities.

If you were to get full legal custody, would you feel the need for family therapy (if BPDxw doesn't want to participate)?

[formflier]

That's part of why we are where we are today...this family T was specifically named in our custody order.  I guess maybe the difference is that we had no language in the order that specified uBPDxw couldn't withdraw consent.
 

Would you mind sharing the exact language?

Consent seems to be implied or actually "imposed" by the court if the order says child xyz will go to family therapy with abc. 

Now..it still may be true that T doesn't want to "switch roles" or could be in legal jeopardy for doing so...but in my mind this sounds like blowing off the order.

Here is the thing...what if you just stopped giving "consent" for visitation, just because the order doesn't say "MW must get consent to stop giving her ex custody" (that language is likely not in the order)...but the omission of that language does not imply in any way that you can just quit doing it...

Mind boggling..

Best,

FF

[mama-wolf]

Or a combination of the above?

I definitely think it's a combination. 

There is a legal element with the way the custody order was set up.  She cannot really perform her role for the entire family if uBPDxw has withdrawn, and if uBPDxw is forced to participate I don't think it will be effective family therapy anyway.

I also think she is a little burned out on working with us due to the lack of progress on uBPDxw's part...the same issues keep coming up, and uBPDxw has (clearly) not been able to improve her impulsivity or her respect for boundaries.  The family T has been very professional and careful not to express such things explicitly to me, so that is just my interpretation from the discussions that we have had in session.  I also know that she has been struggling with complications from COVID due to some underlying breathing problems and has been taking a lighter case load lately, so this may just be opportune timing for her in that regard.

But I also think the chronic high-conflict issue is a factor as well.  Given the lack of change on uBPDxw's part, and the clear indication that this absolutely will continue, she may see now as the time to address it through the court and allow for a chance to have some changes made.

Does your L see a path forward for this based on this recent withdrawal of consent (I'm not sure why it's phrased that way given the action taken and your PC characterizing it in what seem like clear terms).

I'm pretty sure it's being phrased that way to make it clear that this change in status is very much a result of uBPDxw's actions and communication.

If you were to get full legal custody, would you feel the need for family therapy (if BPDxw doesn't want to participate)?

Yes, though it probably wouldn't have to last as long.  When uBPDxw first withdrew, and before the new paperwork had sparked all of this, I discussed the remaining therapy goals with the family T.  Like helping S9 with his relationship with D13 since she takes up so much space and I see him backing down and withdrawing, taking up less.  Another one is to help me work with him on the very different nature of the two homes he goes between.   And helping me and D13, since there is strain there and there are a lot of triggers that I navigate. 

Would you mind sharing the exact language?

The relevant section of the custody order states: "The parties agree to follow all recommendations made by Family T as it relates to the minor children and their care."

The next section says:  "The parties' custodial rights are in consideration of both parents ensuring their current mental health care is ongoing until such time as that parent is released by their therapeutic care provider."

Another section later in the document says:  "Both parties agree to participate in family therapy with each other and the children as recommended by an agreed-upon family therapist, in order to address co-parenting concerns and aid the children through the transition to divorce."  (That verbiage originated from our initial custody order and this particular order was put in place after divorce was final, so not sure how those last few words factor in).

And I found yet another statement that "The parties will follow all recommendations of Family T."

mw

[zachira]

It sounds like you are in the best position you could be to get more custody, possibly full custody of your children. I respect how hard you have worked to get to this point. You are of course nervous about how all this could play out as you never know what your ex will do to try to sabotage things or how the Court will actually rule. Hoping for the best outcomes for you and what is decided by the Court is in your best interests and of your children. I was raised by a mother with BPD and am so glad your children have you as a role model who puts her children's wellbeing first.

[PeteWitsend]

...
The next section says:  "The parties' custodial rights are in consideration of both parents ensuring their current mental health care is ongoing until such time as that parent is released by their therapeutic care provider."

Another section later in the document says:  "Both parties agree to participate in family therapy with each other and the children as recommended by an agreed-upon family therapist, in order to address co-parenting concerns and aid the children through the transition to divorce."  (That verbiage originated from our initial custody order and this particular order was put in place after divorce was final, so not sure how those last few words factor in).

...

The thought occurred to me that the issue here is the "both parties agree to participate in family therapy..." line.  

You're trying to compel a disordered person to do something; better to block them from doing things you don't want them to do, than force them into continuing contact with you or a situation where you need their cooperation!

I think the better solution may be to have a situation where your BPDex can participate if she wants to, and if she wants to, she takes them to this specific therapist and bears the cost on her own.

Basically wall off what you don't want her to be able to do, and allow her the ability to walk away feeling like it was her decision.  By requiring her to participate against her will, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.  Maybe because you hope she'll benefit from it?  But she won't... she'll make everyone else worse off.

They need to feel like they're in control and they "won," whether or not the situation can even have a winner and a loser; let them grumble and walk around telling people what they want, as long as you get what you and your children need... that's a "win."

[GaGrl]

What is your experience and intuition telling you that the PC will recommend?

[mama-wolf]

@zachira, thank you for your comment and support!

The thought occurred to me that the issue here is the "both parties agree to participate in family therapy..." line.  

@PeteWitsend, I see what you're saying about language that blocks rather than compels.  The current order was written when we were both fully engaged in the process.  But a lot has happened in the last 2.5 years and it has become clear to uBPDxw that she's not going to get what she wants out of it.  I will definitely consult with my L about a different approach to language in the new order, though I'm not sure how much of a say we will have if the Court ends up dictating the change.

And @GaGrl, I'm inclined to think the PC will recommend that I at least have decision-making ability on healthcare.  I'm not sure he has been directly engaged with us enough to make a call on full custody, and would expect (or maybe hope) that the Court would want to hear from the family T on something like that.  My L has mentioned the possibility of having her testify, and I would expect that's why...

mw

[kells76]

I'm inclined to think the PC will recommend that I at least have decision-making ability on healthcare.

The fact that D13 is with you full time after her ED treatment seems like it would carry a lot of weight.

How much does the rest of the team (L, PC, etc) know about how xW behaved before/during D13's treatment?

[livednlearned]

I'm pretty sure it's being phrased that way to make it clear that this change in status is very much a result of uBPDxw's actions and communication

What a hall pass for BPDxw   There's probably a legal reason why it isn't called contempt of court but still. Even if contempt of court gets treated like parking tickets, at least the volume becomes a metric by which the court can measure conflict over time. Maybe it will be treated that way even though it's considered withdrawal of consent.

You're trying to compel a disordered person to do something; better to block them from doing things you don't want them to do, than force them into continuing contact with you or a situation where you need their cooperation!

Good advice. This particular BPDxw seems like stonewalling. Essentially throwing a wrench into the family's gears by choosing not to participate.

To counter that, you may want to ask your L to offer to write the order (usually it is a courtesy thing -- tell your L in advance you want him/her to take that on, which will cost you but it's worth it). And then ask to see a copy of the language once it's drafted. You can then see where loopholes exist and make minor tweaks to the language so that there are natural, reasonable consequences for non-compliance.  

It helps eliminate what to do when BPDxw does not comply and if you do have to go back to court, it eliminates the waffling of a judge, who can see exactly what the consequences are for non-compliance or non-participation.

You probably won't have an L who thinks at this level of detail because they don't have to live with the conflict and won't be as motivated to find solutions for this degree of high-conflict behavior.

Once the order is written by your lawyer and you sign off, a draft will be shared with BPDxw and her lawyer, and then you'll go to court to have the order filed with the court. Your BPDxw will probably not read the language that closely -- court can make us all dysregulate, and she probably won't be noticing reasonable consequences for non-compliannce -- if she does, then your lawyers go back and forth. If it can't get worked out, the judge will do it, and by then your L can say, "We proposed that if BPDxw does not participate in x, then y will happen. We asked her to propose an alternative solution and she was unable to think of anything, so we are here."

Since you want family T for you and the kids, something like "Both parties are encouraged to attend family T. mama-wolf will select 10 names by day/date and BPDxw has until day/date to rank order her preferences. If BPDxw does not select someone by day/date, mama-wolf will choose. If neither party chooses to participate in family T, that is up to each one to decide." That's just an example -- it sounds to me more like you're about to enter a multi-step process to get full legal custody, which will depend on the competencies of the Ls and the reasonableness of the judge.  

[livednlearned]

I'm not sure he has been directly engaged with us enough to make a call on full custody

Given that your state uses PCs, my guess is that it will be a very high bar to get full custody 

But full legal custody is a game changer. When I was awarded full custody, it felt symbolic more than anything -- they didn't even call it that in order to remove the red towel from n/BPDx's line of sight.

If you are given full legal custody or even medical decision-making, it will eliminate so much of the anguish. And while it might not eliminate conflict with your ex, you will have a clear path to decision-making without being triangulated with a PC or T or judge. You can just make a good decision and then move on it.

[kells76]

Given that your state uses PCs, my guess is that it will be a very high bar to get full custody

If you are given full legal custody or even medical decision-making, it will eliminate so much of the anguish.

So it sounds like things are moving towards a return to court and a tightening up of the PP language.

I wonder if strategically it would be good to frame it to your xW the way LnL hints at -- instead of this being an "all or nothing" trip where "you have to get full custody" in this hearing, can this be a return trip to "clarify roles"?

It's been mentioned here before that "letting the pwBPD feel like they're winning" can decrease conflict.

Can the "roles" be clarified and divided such that you DO end up with full medical & mental health decision making (and whatever else you foresee you'll need), and xW receives an equal number of "roles", for things that for you are less mission-critical? I.e. would you trust her to have "tiebreaker" with orthodontics, religion, "dangerous activities" (a specified and limited list), etc... so she feels like she "is equal" / "is getting the same as you" / "you aren't winning"?

I guess I'm wondering if you can end up with effective full custody even if it's not official full custody.

[formflier]

I guess I'm wondering if you can end up with effective full custody even if it's not official full custody.

Yes..this.

Or would it be best to go after full legal custody and then "settle" for effective by tossing some language that really doesn't matter towards your ex.

Kinda like what LnL said about "removing the red towel".

I'm certainly curious if LnL thinks she was wise to "go after" full and back off or if she thinks the played that the best she could.  Now that she has the benefit of time and seeing how that played out.

Best,

FF

[ForeverDad]

My spider sense is telling me that the therapist is subtly saying "the order needs to change".  Assigning another therapist is not the solution, the risk is high that the next time results in a stalemate or failure yet again.

Your task is to ensure a better order grants you medical, mental and therapeutic authority.

Courts of course are reluctant to shut a parent out of parenting.  Rather than be frustrated, try to get something like Decision Making or even Tie Breaker status.  Tie Breaker means that you consult with the other parent and then (whatever the response) you proceed.  Frankly, either one has virtually the same effect as full custody, just not the title.  Sure, the ex could object but then it's up to the ex to shoulder the expense to take it to the PC or court and odds are little would come of it.

[mama-wolf]

How much does the rest of the team (L, PC, etc) know about how xW behaved before/during D13's treatment?

They're all well aware, so I'm hoping that's in my favor...

To counter that, you may want to ask your L to offer to write the order (usually it is a courtesy thing -- tell your L in advance you want him/her to take that on, which will cost you but it's worth it). And then ask to see a copy of the language once it's drafted. You can then see where loopholes exist and make minor tweaks to the language so that there are natural, reasonable consequences for non-compliance.  

I like this suggestion.  My L is good at what language to use, but I think it takes both of us to review and apply effectively to this situation and my ex.  As you indicated, I'm the one who's more highly motivated on the details side...

Once the order is written by your lawyer and you sign off, a draft will be shared with BPDxw and her lawyer, and then you'll go to court to have the order filed with the court. Your BPDxw will probably not read the language that closely -- court can make us all dysregulate, and she probably won't be noticing reasonable consequences for non-compliannce -- if she does, then your lawyers go back and forth. If it can't get worked out, the judge will do it, and by then your L can say, "We proposed that if BPDxw does not participate in x, then y will happen. We asked her to propose an alternative solution and she was unable to think of anything, so we are here."

Oh, she'll be paying close attention...she's an attorney herself, though not of the family law variety...

But full legal custody is a game changer. When I was awarded full custody, it felt symbolic more than anything -- they didn't even call it that in order to remove the red towel from n/BPDx's line of sight.

If you are given full legal custody or even medical decision-making, it will eliminate so much of the anguish. And while it might not eliminate conflict with your ex, you will have a clear path to decision-making without being triangulated with a PC or T or judge. You can just make a good decision and then move on it.

Yes, this is really what I'm hoping for...even if not specifically named as such.

It's been mentioned here before that "letting the pwBPD feel like they're winning" can decrease conflict.

Can the "roles" be clarified and divided such that you DO end up with full medical & mental health decision making (and whatever else you foresee you'll need), and xW receives an equal number of "roles", for things that for you are less mission-critical? I.e. would you trust her to have "tiebreaker" with orthodontics, religion, "dangerous activities" (a specified and limited list), etc... so she feels like she "is equal" / "is getting the same as you" / "you aren't winning"?

I guess I'm wondering if you can end up with effective full custody even if it's not official full custody.

Y'all are too reasonable    I freaking hate letting her feel like she has won anything, but I do get the point.  I just have to be very careful of the trade-offs, and as far as I can tell there aren't that many available that haven't already been argued ad nauseum over the past four years.

Or would it be best to go after full legal custody and then "settle" for effective by tossing some language that really doesn't matter towards your ex.

Definitely a strategy question for my L...

My spider sense is telling me that the therapist is subtly saying "the order needs to change".  Assigning another therapist is not the solution, the risk is high that the next time results in a stalemate or failure yet again.

Your task is to ensure a better order grants you medical, mental and therapeutic authority.

Courts of course are reluctant to shut a parent out of parenting.  Rather than be frustrated, try to get something like Decision Making or even Tie Breaker status.  Tie Breaker means that you consult with the other parent and then (whatever the response) you proceed.

FD!  So good to hear from you as well!

Yes, this is ultimately what I need, and I think this is what the family T was getting at in our last session.  She was asking what if I just let uBPDxw send me her position (on various topics), and then just treat it as a "thank you for your application, we'll be in touch" kind of situation.  Of course under the prior structure, it would be up to the family T and the PC to run interference on any objections.  In the current situation, I have a chance for a change that will take them out of that equation, and to your point then uBPDxw will have to decide if she's going to pay to fight it...

mw

[livednlearned]

Oh, she'll be paying close attention...she's an attorney herself, though not of the family law variety...

Mine was an attorney too.  .

He seemed to experience episodes of psychosis in court. I don't know if it was a combination of the stress, having an audience, or what caused it exactly. Maybe it was just him and it seemed magnified watching it go down in front of other people. He did not seem to pay attention to the right details.

I'm certainly curious if LnL thinks she was wise to "go after" full and back off or if she thinks the played that the best she could.  Now that she has the benefit of time and seeing how that played out.

I didn't really go after full custody, per se.

It seems odd to me now but I wavered back and forth about full custody at the end.

We were sort of in a de facto sole custody situation and I didn't want to kick the hornet's nest by making it official. My L said our judge was going to be rotating off the bench and there was a lot of history there in my favor so we should act.

Looking back, n/BPDx representing himself put a lot of sunlight on his disordered thinking. There was no filter. In a way, he was sort of protected by being a lawyer, but it was because he was a lawyer that more was expected of him.

mama-wolf, I wish the T withdrawing was less ambiguous because I think that's a key factor in how efficiently things move forward for you. It's hard to fully appreciate what the whole picture is when we're just out here on the internet trying to puzzle it together, but from what I can gather, it seems like you (and your team) are making incremental positive steps toward what's best for the kids.

Right now, you're in the aggravating stage where people are trying things and watching to see who does what. The T's move seems to mean something but it also seems like she isn't saying it loud and clear.

When my PC withdrew, she was pretty blunt about why.  That made for a clear message to the judge that in the world of high-conflict, we had a real humdinger on our hands. There wasn't any dithering because of her clear statement.

At some point, people involved in our cases have to recognize that these solutions can become problems on their own, and maybe it's time to acknowledge that full custody (however it's presented) is actually better for the kids.

[formflier]

I think this last post clarifies something I was thinking..but couldn't quite put into words.

The "why" that the T withdrew.  Needs to be much clearer.  I'm hoping there is a way to send an "interrogatory"  to her to clarify some critical points.

"If pwBPD is ordered back into family T, do you think they will be compliant...based on past experience?"

Then maybe same question for MW. 



I could see a T being reluctant to say this one is all bad and this one is all good, yet there has to be some way to clarify to the court about which parent is "better" for the child.

Best,

FF