Losing my son in court, for the second time

[jeanluc]

Divorced for 4 years. She won full custody. I pled out of a false DV charge to avoid the record, except it never goes away in DR court. Her PO expired, but we agreed to move the no-contact clause into the DR agreement except for child-related OFW. She moved out of State. The court let her. Our son started having trouble in school. I moved to be nearby. Mom refused to alter the visitation schedule. I moved to modify. Mom said lots of things. We appointed a BIA to represent our son. The BIA negotiated 25% visitation schedule and agreement (with sacrifice).

In the past 2 years, he has had roughly 20 distinct diagnoses, ranging from Bipolar, Autism, ADHD, and so on. All providers have been chosen by Mom. Suspect Mom is enabling behaviors in over-permissive parenting. Son was evaluated professionally. They said he needs better discipline, amongst a host of other things.

Mom moved within the county. Son is transferring schools in the last year of elementary.

An incident occurs. I attempt discipline. He retaliates. Calls Mom. I lose visitation pending completion of Family Therapy with son at his discretion. Mom does not support it at home, behaviors abound at the office, but she is doing a good job of pretending to the court so whatever they do know does not bring about corrective action.

I have read Splitting and Eggshells. I believe my ex, my son's Mom, has figured out how to game the courts entirely. My attorney is gaslighting me because the exports parrot Mom's incorrect observations.

Help.

[kells76]

Hi jeanluc, welcome to the group. So sorry for what has brought you here -- this kind of battle over the kids is excruciating.

So if I'm tracking correctly, your parenting time split had been 25% you and 75% Mom? Is that right?

And then (likely due to Mom's overempowerment of him), your son reacted in a big way to your discipline and told Mom about it?

So what happened then (legally speaking) to send you to 0%? Did Mom put in some kind of emergency petition/keep Son and not send him to your place/etc? Is she doing anything with "legal" backing or is it all just her decision?

Has the family therapy started yet? If so, what's the general plan in it? FT may actually have some promise for getting things more normal, there are ways to approach the sessions and therapist that can show where the real problems are coming from, without sounding like a blamer.

Have you read anything by Dr. Craig Childress yet? His work was a game changer for us (my husband's kids' mom has many BPD traits and she remarried to someone with strong NPD traits. The subtle/covert conflict has been relentless for ~10 years). Check out this article on what he terms "Ju-jitsu parenting" (i.e. staying strong in your role as a parent when the other parent tries to put you in the "down" position):

https://bpdfamily.com/pdfs/Childress.pdf

He has really good tips on how to strategically interact with professionals (like family therapists) to show them the real dynamics.

My attorney is gaslighting me because the exports parrot Mom's incorrect observations.

How long have you had that attorney? People can change L's if the L isn't meeting their needs. Might be worth looking into, as in your case you'll need an assertive problem solver with real experience with personality disorders --  not just a "rubber stamp the documents" lawyer.

Keep posting here. It can be a lifesaver.

-kells76

[jeanluc]

So if I'm tracking correctly, your parenting time split had been 25% you and 75% Mom? Is that right?

Yes.

And then (likely due to Mom's overempowerment of him), your son reacted in a big way to your discipline and told Mom about it?

Yes. That then involved the police and CPS due to an exaggerated version of events.

So what happened then (legally speaking) to send you to 0%? Did Mom put in some kind of emergency petition/keep Son and not send him to your place/etc? Is she doing anything with "legal" backing or is it all just her decision?

The BIA believes the exaggerated version events and that Son is likely to do this again, so Dad and Son need clinical training for special needs. BIA asked for clinical transition back to overnights based on recommendations of the three treating clinicians in Son's present situation.

L is afraid that Mom will file for a PO if Dad re-asserts visitation as CPS recommended. L fears BIA will be force to side with Mom in such a proceeding.

Has the family therapy started yet? If so, what's the general plan in it? FT may actually have some promise for getting things more normal, there are ways to approach the sessions and therapist that can show where the real problems are coming from, without sounding like a blamer.

Yes. And the first therapist was not a good fit and it was not successful. She was unable to establish and maintain boundaries. By the end of 6 weeks Son was running around the office, eloping the premises, and taking things from the office and kitchen. She has canceled the remaining sessions.

I will look bad here because Mom begged therapist to continue, and we did without Mom's support at home and so without effect, and I am not begging her to continue because it is not good for Son.  I will also look bad for starting to insert boundaries where the therapist failed, Son reacting and eloping to Mom.

Have you read anything by Dr. Craig Childress yet?

No. It is on my shortlist for today.

How long have you had that attorney? People can change L's if the L isn't meeting their needs. Might be worth looking into, as in your case you'll need an assertive problem solver with real experience with personality disorders --  not just a "rubber stamp the documents" lawyer.

2 years. L has been practicing for about 10. Roughly 42 cases in the last 10 years compared to boss's 141 cases.

I have left messages with half a dozen attorneys in the jurisdiction for a second opinion and zero have called back.

JL

[jeanluc]

I wish I'd had this before the therapist cancelled family therapy:
https://bpdfamily.com/pdfs/Childress.pdf

Though they were unable to enforce boundaries in the office and bring Mom in on incentives, I do wonder if knowing this would have made a difference or not. Probably not. If the allied parent enables the behaviors, there is a low probability for engagement.

This writeup on Parenting Ju-jitsu is good, actionable, and well documented. The goal broadly being to avoid INTENT to Task or Change while tending toward INTENT to Be With or Understand. While maintaining an emotional posture of level 1 or 2 out of 10 level happiness (think Dali Lama): easy disposition, chuckle (not laugh) for invalidation, and inviting.

Thank you.

[kells76]

Quick question, I haven't heard the acronym BIA before, what does it stand for?

...

The family therapy issue... could go either way. If I'm understanding this:

Dad and Son need clinical training for special needs. BIA asked for clinical transition back to overnights based on recommendations of the three treating clinicians in Son's present situation.

L is afraid that Mom will file for a PO if Dad re-asserts visitation as CPS recommended. L fears BIA will be force to side with Mom in such a proceeding.

So the "BIA" (right now I'm assuming it's like a Guardian Ad Litem?) individual has said "on paper" (or recorded somehow, email, etc), that actually you CAN have overnights with your son, pending doing this "clinical training for special needs" program. The 3 clinicians who have all seen your son have "signed off" on that.

Right?

But am I seeing correctly that CPS doesn't think you need to do all that, and thinks it's fine to go back to overnights right away, without going through the "special needs" training?

So the conflict is: if you do parenting time right now, without the "special needs training", like CPS says is OK, that goes against what your son's clinicians and the BIA say?

I want to make sure I'm tracking with you and not misunderstanding, as that can help us here on the boards dig into our knowledge base and experiences to support you and figure out a robust path forward.

[jeanluc]

Quick question, I haven't heard the acronym BIA before, what does it stand for?

Best Interest Attorney. GAL renamed. Has authority to see private confidential minor files including medical. Judges tend to listen to them.

I am not aware of any mechanism for accountability or even how to check whether or not one is doing their job. Somewhere there are rumored to be a list of criteria, but nobody that I have come across so far appears to use it or care to know it.

So the "BIA" (right now I'm assuming it's like a Guardian Ad Litem?) individual has said "on paper" (or recorded somehow, email, etc), that actually you CAN have overnights with your son, pending doing this "clinical training for special needs" program. The 3 clinicians who have all seen your son have "signed off" on that.

Right?

Actually no. It's all verbal as far as I can tell.

But am I seeing correctly that CPS doesn't think you need to do all that, and thinks it's fine to go back to overnights right away, without going through the "special needs" training?

Correct.

So the conflict is: if you do parenting time right now, without the "special needs training", like CPS says is OK, that goes against what your son's clinicians and the BIA say?

Correct. Allegedly. There is no comms to substantiate the BIA's concerns between the providers and me, Dad.

I attempted to call a meeting of the clinicians to discuss the BIA's concerns to understand. Only one was available to speak, but it's not clear she advocated for my removal in the way the BIA indicated.

I want to make sure I'm tracking with you and not misunderstanding, as that can help us here on the boards dig into our knowledge base and experiences to support you and figure out a robust path forward.

Copy that.

[kells76]

OK, this might seem repetitive, but I'm working to get a handle on all the "moving parts" in your situation. So bear with me.

I lose visitation pending completion of Family Therapy with son at his discretion.

Did the BIA "order" family therapy? If not, who did? Is the "order" documented?

Is the family therapy the same as the "clinical training for special needs"? Or are those two different things?

Excerpt
So the "BIA" (right now I'm assuming it's like a Guardian Ad Litem?) individual has said "on paper" (or recorded somehow, email, etc), that actually you CAN have overnights with your son, pending doing this "clinical training for special needs" program. The 3 clinicians who have all seen your son have "signed off" on that.

Right?

Actually no. It's all verbal as far as I can tell.

Verbal directly to you, or verbal to your lawyer, or verbal to...? Is it your son's mom telling you "this is what the BIA said to me"?     

I attempted to call a meeting of the clinicians to discuss the BIA's concerns to understand. Only one was available to speak, but it's not clear she advocated for my removal in the way the BIA indicated.

Hmmm... interesting.

Are you directly in touch with CPS, i.e. you and a case manager are talking directly?

...

Let me see if I can put this together.

There are at least 5 entities involved right now:

-a BIA (a.k.a GAL), chosen jointly by you and your son's mom. I am assuming you are 110% sure this is a real person (have met them, emailed them, something to confirm)
-CPS
-family therapist (or, was involved)
-your lawyer
-your son's 3 clinicians

Somebody ordered that FT happen in order to resume visitation, and it did for 6 weeks but was ineffective, so the therapist cancelled of her own accord.

Also, somebody recommended something called "special needs training" in order to have overnights, but whatever this is has not started yet?

Your L thinks that if you resume visitation without a signoff from a family therapist, the BIA will not like that.

CPS does not have a problem if you resume visitation without FT (is this documented)?

So am I tracking correctly that "the visitation issue" and "the overnight issue" are kind of different right now? Two entities are focused on "the visitation issue" (BIA says "not without finishing FT" and CPS says "no problem"), and one entity is focused on "the overnight issue" (allegedly, clinicians say "do this training before resuming overnights, but we have nothing to say about visitation")?

If I'm tracking, then a lot of entities are fine with you doing visitation (or aren't involved in that particular issue), but your L is wary because the BIA might "rule" or "order" in Mom's favor if you push for it without the BIA's approval. And the BIA's approval is contingent on getting a family therapist's signoff?

...

OK, so if that's all correct, then how do we:

-push hard to get a competent family therapist involved? Yes, this first one burned out and wasn't skilled or tough enough to help, but this seems important to move forward. Be the parent who is eager to get more competent professionals involved. Get in writing that you WANT to do FT, but maybe you do some research on FTs in your area, and compile a shortlist of ~3 who actually have a lot of experience with high conflict families AND with intense special needs. Present the list to your son's mom on OFW and say something like "Please let me know your top pick for a new family therapist, as Previous Therapist is no longer available. Let me know which of the 3 you want by Day/Date; if I don't hear back from you by then, I will proceed with selection."

-"force" the entities involved to "put their money where their mouth is" by officially documenting their "orders", requirements, recommendations, etc? Right now, with stuff being "verbal" or "he said that she said that...", it's in Mom's favor. The more you can "back them into a corner" and get the various professionals to make things official, the more concrete steps you have to work with. If it's that big of a deal then they can write it in an email. Find ways to be proactive and assertive with your L. "Make" the various groups be explicit. A key part of this is to have their nonresponse be a response. One example of how to phrase letters and emails with that in mind is something like:

"Dear BIA;

I have received your verbal recommendation, conveyed to me by Son's Mom in OFW entry dated Day/Month/Year, that my parenting time be suspended pending completion of family therapy. As the family therapist is no longer working with us, and as CPS has no concerns about me exercising my parenting time (see attached email dated D/M/Y), I plan to exercise my parenting time, starting Monday, per the schedule you created on D/M/Y (attached). If I do not hear back from you by Friday, I will assume you have no further concerns and I will move forward with caring for and spending time with my son.

Best;

jeanluc"

That would be an example of forcing their hand, "making" them write their concerns/etc, and -- key part -- if they choose not to respond, then that in and of itself is a response. So you aren't left waiting and hoping and desperate for a response.

Of course, run this tactic by your L., and this example email is just that, an example -- not necessarily what you should specifically do or write. More just to illustrate that you can change tactics to this more proactive approach that "forces" professionals to put in writing all this nebulous stuff. This seems key for your situation.

-show that you are a dad who actively wants to be involved with parenting? As you're in this limbo, consider ways to show that you want to stay in touch with your son. Attempt to do Facetime, send birthday/Christmas cards, go to sporting events... even if Mom shuts you down/cuts you off, that is long term going to look really bad for her. In a way, this is a win win, no matter if it "works" or not. If you are able to Facetime etc, that is a plus for the relationship. If Mom denies it (make sure this is documented in OFW or somewhere), and if she starts a pattern of denying you that contact, that is going to pay off for you long term, in that it shows that Mom isn't really caring about Son's well being, she just wants to punish you.

...

Anyway, lots of questions/food for thought, so I'll wait for you to clarify.

Your situation is challenging but not impossible. I feel like with this many moving parts and professionals involved, it may be slow and clunky at first, but you can leverage all those eyes on the situation to your and your son's advantage, if you're patient and play the mid to long game.

[jeanluc]

Did the BIA "order" family therapy? If not, who did? Is the "order" documented?

Yes, though not officially through the court.

Is the family therapy the same as the "clinical training for special needs"? Or are those two different things?

I don't know.

Verbal directly to you, or verbal to your lawyer, or verbal to...? Is it your son's mom telling you "this is what the BIA said to me"?      

Verbal BIA to L, then separately verbal L to me.

Are you directly in touch with CPS, i.e. you and a case manager are talking directly?

Yes. I had direct contact with the CPS case manager.

The CPS case had been resolved with a resolution to refer the family to additional services (a social work concierge to parenting classes). Referral Program.

Let me see if I can put this together.

There are at least 5 entities involved right now:

-a BIA (a.k.a GAL), chosen jointly by you and your son's mom. I am assuming you are 110% sure this is a real person (have met them, emailed them, something to confirm)
-CPS Referral Program
-family therapist (or, was involved)
-your lawyer
-your son's 3 clinicians

Yes. Plus IEP personnel TBD - school psychologist, therapist, teacher. New school.

Also, the evaluating psychologist is trying to bow out now that his report is done (1 of 3 clinicians).

Somebody ordered that FT happen in order to resume visitation, and it did for 6 weeks but was ineffective, so the therapist cancelled of her own accord.

Also, somebody recommended something called "special needs training" in order to have overnights, but whatever this is has not started yet?

BIA wants to observe appropriate behavior and relationship between Dad and Son before overnights come back.

Your L thinks that if you resume visitation without a signoff from a family therapist, the BIA will not like that.

Yes.

CPS does not have a problem if you resume visitation without FT (is this documented)?

They don't mention FT in their lifting of the Safety Plan for their inquiry, which would then resume visitation with overnights as far as I can tell.

So am I tracking correctly that "the visitation issue" and "the overnight issue" are kind of different right now? Two entities are focused on "the visitation issue" (BIA says "not without finishing FT" and CPS says "no problem"), and one entity is focused on "the overnight issue" (allegedly, clinicians say "do this training before resuming overnights, but we have nothing to say about visitation")?

The BIA is pulling the full safety card instead of seeing it as cross-generational coalition against Dad to avoid responsibility and discipline. So no visitation and no overnights is his expectation.

If I'm tracking, then a lot of entities are fine with you doing visitation (or aren't involved in that particular issue), but your L is wary because the BIA might "rule" or "order" in Mom's favor if you push for it without the BIA's approval. And the BIA's approval is contingent on getting a family therapist's signoff?

L is concerned that if I reinstate visitation, Mom will file for a PO and BIA will side with Mom on Safety Concerns.

[jeanluc]

Development: FT wants to meet one last time. Therapist will not share the agenda or intention. Going in prepared for FT Ju-jitsu, expecting a platform for Son to "express feelings" at me and then closing remarks.

Nit: I cannot schedule clinicians for my Son. No custodial right to do so. The threat therefore is empty. Mom has canceled appointments I have set up in the past using her authority. Without consequence. Further, it is observed by all including L and BIA, that if Dad makes a suggestion on OFW, Mom will resist. Such that the L's and BIA prefer that I do not suggest things that they want to do because it makes their job more difficult.

I see how you wrote the letter to the BIA. I will try in the next message to bring this together into a strategy.

In carefully re-reading his written letter, it appears to me that he intends to consult the practitioners as to Son and Dad's "status" then make a judgment call for overnight visits. The criteria being that Son trusts Dad again and that Dad and Son have skills to manage when behaviors arise.

This sounds a lot like the GAL in the previous jurisdiction. Dad has attended Parenting Classes and learned all about this previously. Mom did not have to take the classes.

BIA seems ignorant to Family Systems Theory (FST) / Attachment Theory / Childress Observations which would focus on Mom and Dad's pathological relationship which largely causes the "attachment pathology".

Previous attempts to bring Mom to the FT table have failed. The BIA will not engage in this. L and BIA say you cannot change Personality, but somehow they miss that this is Behavior that needs changed. Not Personality. They do not understand. They enable Mom's bad behavior.

I wonder if engaging Dr. Childress or similar as an expert 2nd opinion with recommendation accordingly might give the BIA more to work with on this front of parental relationship. Per Dr. Childress, "Referral Question: Which parent is the source of pathogenic parenting creating the child's attachment pathology, and what are the treatment implications?" The source of pathogenic parenting is Mom's inability to forgive Dad for disappointing her and inability to mourn the relationship (undiagnosed BPD/NPD). So this amounts to retaliation and revenge. Kind of.

On the phone, Son has started showing signs of replacing Dad in the Family diagram of FST.

[jeanluc]

Okay. Let's put this together. I find myself wishing I knew what the specific concerns of the clinicians were.
…

I am complying and doing my part to enact the BIA's plan.

I desire to have a loving relationship with my Son.

Mom has full custody. It is not working.

I believe Mom and Son have formed a cross generational coalition against me, Dad, targeting me for hostility, contempt, and disrespect. I believe that my Ex is encouraging delusional victimization over responsibility for one's actions, stoking my Son's anger to keep us apart. Having lived with my Ex- and having watched this unfold in our relationship leading to the divorce I see that it now is occurring with my Son.

I believe that there is no possible intervention which can succeed without Mom--clinical, judicial familial, or otherwise. This is evidenced by the 19 and counting diagnoses Son has received since he and Mom moved here in 2019, the multitude of clinicians and therapists who number more than Son's friends, and the extreme isolation and conviction with which Mom persists the delusion of victimization in order to enjoy the elevated status, rights, and privileges of Victim. Ultimately Mom's behavior is enabled and encouraged by the Court, the clinicians, and the authorities who act injunctively for safety without consideration for the Presumption of Innocence and the harm it visits as a tool of Domestic Violence itself.

There is a path within Clinical Psychology which agrees that Mom must participate in the solution. It is solutions (not past) based Family Systems Therapy, the only therapy involving more than one individual, with expertise in Attachment Theory and Personality Disorders.

The FT selected by Mom does not have experience or training with Family Systems Therapy, Attachment Theory, or Personality Disorders. So this FT is unlikely to succeed in this High Conflict Divorce Family.

Mom has a history of detecting, avoiding, and even firing those providers which make things better for Son. Dad is unable to engage providers due to lack of custody. Mom has canceled Dad's intake appointments in the past. Therefore all treatment is at Mom's discretion. It is not working. Meanwhile Son collects diagnoses. Without significant improvement or global understanding.

The BIA's plan is safety driven. A risk analysis will show that it risks more than it gains and fails to address Dad's concerns of Neglect and Abuse.

The risk of physical harm to Son is zero. No physical harm has come to Son outside of Son causing it himself in order to avoid. In the recent incident in which there are claims of inappropriate conduct, again, no harm actually occurred. Except treating this so-called harm as something real has the very definite and measurable harm of validating delusional victimization, which is the manipulative pattern of behavior observed for Mom and Son now. Even if the story were not entirely delusional, the effect is divisive, anti-family, and anti-relational, with its sole purpose being to divide Dad and Son.

The risk of inadequate skills by Dad is low probability with low criticality. Allowing Dad the chance to adapt to the cross-generational coalition as it becomes established is low risk. Dad has attended many classes, including parenting classes, which largely address these issues. What Dad did not expect was that he might raise the alarm to so many experts for 4 months in advance without any effect or support whatsoever. Dad began raising concerns about escalating retaliatory behaviors starting 4 months before the episode in question occurred.

The plan does not appear to account for the risk of Fatherlessness. And no, Mom's paramour does not count as a complete Father figure. This is clearly indicated by the CPS-referred social worker's interview and observations. Here are some choice statistics on the matter highlighting the risk that grows as we proceed without Dad in Son's life (medium probability and high criticality):

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

The plan is supposed to have come from the recommendations of the treating clinicians. They have not been available for comment toward this end of removing Dad for the concerns stated above. Given the lack of availability or ability for them to have any impact whatsoever (ultimately because Mom is not on board) with a known and identified issue, their opinions are held with skepticism and limited interest.

CPS does not have any unaddressed concerns about restoring visitation. See attached document [1] dated xyz.

In addition to the non-responsiveness of mandatory reporters above, Dad continues to have unaddressed concerns of Neglect and Abuse.

Recent Social Worker visits noted extreme permissive parenting, a serious form of Neglect that aligns with Son's pattern of acting out when corrected.

Son exhibits 9 out of 13 criteria for Emotional Abuse:

Code:

Isolation
Depression
Agitation
Withdrawal
Unexplained
    Rashes - impetigo on the lips
    Facial tics -  nervous smile tic
    Stomach Aches - does not eat much
Nervous habits
    Head banging at school
    Bedwetting

Further, given this circumstance of permissive parenting, relying on Child-led indicators is not a reliable method of judgment. What child would choose to do what is in their best interest with an allied parent that offers the escape route? What child asks for spinach and vegetables over sugar and candy? While in the end we hope the Child can grow out of this and stand on his own two feet, it is too much to ask him to be the sole arbiter of truth and reconciliation for this family.

Dad's Safety Plan addresses all known concerns and risks.

Given the situation, risk analysis, and concerns Dad is unwilling to wait indefinitely for Mom to select an FT with enough experience and skill to solve the problem. Therefore, if such a qualified FT provider as described above cannot be selected and engaged by [4 weeks from now], we will plan to resume scheduled visitation the week following on the regular day, [DAY].

If I do not hear back from you by this Friday, I will assume you have no further concerns and I will move forward with caring for and spending time with my son.

[kells76]

Couple more questions first:

Development: FT wants to meet one last time.

When's that coming up?

I find myself wishing I knew what the specific concerns of the clinicians were.

Are you in a US state where the non-custodial parent has specific rights (i.e. to "inspect and receive any/all records relating to child's education, mental health, etc")?

and:

With the letter you've assembled, is that more of a "putting thoughts together" thing right now, or a "planning to send" thing, and if so, to whom?

...

I think I'm tracking with you that you're concerned that your L is maybe too tentative and/or too swayed by the BIA? Perhaps "erring on the side of caution", or intimidated by the BIA, or maybe there's a better description? You're having a sense that "hey, I'm not experiencing my L assertively advocating for my son's right to a relationship with me"?

And I think I've asked you about, or at least mentioned before, the possibility of getting a different L.

Have you had a "let's cut the BS and talk straight" conversation with your L yet, of saying "So these are my goals, and I think these tactics are part of a solid strategy, so help me understand why you seem to be doing a less assertive approach"?

I suspect that you are "allowed" to have initial consultations with other lawyers even while you have still retained your current one. So ponder if you can take the results of that "let's cut the BS" conversation -- whatever justifications/explanations your current L has -- to a few consultations with new L's, basically saying: here's where my current legal counsel is at, and I want a second opinion. If I were to hire you, given my situation, would you be doing the same thing?

That seems like fruitful information to help you find the most effective path forward. I.e., if it's only your current L in this "let's play it safe" posture, and 2-3 other L's are like No way, I would be much more proactive -- there you go, you know it's just an issue with your L. Versus, if most to all of the L's you consult with are saying "Like it or not, in this jurisdiction, the most effective thing for NCP dads to do is what your current L suggests" -- well, that's also information you can use to be the most effective you can.

...

Sorry it took me a minute to write back. Hope you're hanging in there;

kells76

[jeanluc]

Couple more questions first:

When's that coming up?

Yesterday. Closed due to the concerns of increased anxiety of Son with Mom and in the FT office.

Are you in a US state where the non-custodial parent has specific rights (i.e. to "inspect and receive any/all records relating to child's education, mental health, etc")?

Yes. But not really. I technically have access, but records of minors are protected from parents here as a matter of practice. Legal action to get the full records has not been pursued, but may be necessary. The BIA is explicitly allowed full access.

I have been deprived access to school and medical records, which is technically illegal.

With the letter you've assembled, is that more of a "putting thoughts together" thing right now, or a "planning to send" thing, and if so, to whom?

The former, putting thoughts together.

I think I'm tracking with you that you're concerned that your L is maybe too tentative and/or too swayed by the BIA? Perhaps "erring on the side of caution", or intimidated by the BIA, or maybe there's a better description? You're having a sense that "hey, I'm not experiencing my L assertively advocating for my son's right to a relationship with me"?

The feeling is that L does not believe that 19 diagnoses in under 2 years after moving to this state along with little to no progress on behaviors is grounds to suspect foul play with clinicians / experts. Doctor shopping is legal means to turning a child into sick kid in Family Court?

L believes that the Son is sick. I do not believe diagnoses are anything beyond trainable behaviors. I believe it is Mom's need to avoid responsibility for extreme permissive parenting and her core value from earlier in life which drives the need for clinicians to validate her delusion (it's Son's problem, not her's). When we were a family she did not discipline (not talking about spanking. just rules, expectations, and rewards) or train Son to behave well (little adult syndrome). When I stepped in and filled the vacuum of parenting, Mom considered it abuse and resolved to leave the relationship. Son's behaviors improved when I stepped in.

L and BIA believe that Mom cannot be changed and that Dad needs to learn new skills for how to deal with this and that Dad is physically a threat due to prior plea bargain for DV out of state against Mom and recent incident.

In my observation, Son has been conditioned to decompensate emotionally in order to avoid work and responsibility. When those rewards are removed and retrained, such as when he comes here to visit for extended periods, like he would have during the summer but which had been cancelled for safety, his behaviors improve and his anxious avoidant behaviors reduce.

So if the diagnoses are true as BIA and L believe, then my expectations are unrealistic, my observations invalidated, and it forces me to become Disney Dad whenever Son wishes to avoid work.

And I think I've asked you about, or at least mentioned before, the possibility of getting a different L.

Have you had a "let's cut the BS and talk straight" conversation with your L yet, of saying "So these are my goals, and I think these tactics are part of a solid strategy, so help me understand why you seem to be doing a less assertive approach"?

I have been calling attorneys. The few that answer want a consulting fee for the initial meeting.

L is the understudy of the Partner L (PL) who I bought into and believe is good for this. I went with L to save $. Maybe visit the PL and invite them to take over the case or recommend an attorney that would better suit this case as it has developed. I believe I need assertive, knows the law & case law, and can litigate.

I took an extra job to afford living here and L. Time is limited. Headspace is limited. Difficult to transition once stuck on these intractable issues.

A second opinion. I will keep looking for a free or reasonable consultation. $500 and $600 for the last quotes.

How do you recommend to find a good L? The court records are incomplete (to protect minors). Talking costs money. Where do family law attorneys socialize?

JL

[livednlearned]

Whew. There's a lot going on.

kells76 is asking great questions and insights.

I would only add that contents of the letter positions you as an expert equal to the lawyers and clinicians. What you may want to do is position yourself as fact-finding in order to better understand these inconsistencies and excesses (19 diagnoses).

Your case has moving parts that are a bit hard to second-guess so this isn't so much about the exact details, more the type of thinking.

For example, you have concluded that 19 diagnoses is excessive. An alternative is to position yourself as concerned. Can the court help shine light on this problem? Sunlight is good for our cases.

I think you are right that something is happening with the diagnoses. However, if you assert yourself as expert on the topic, you set everyone else up to argue with you, which is going to end badly. Professionals know better in family court, which isn't right but that's how it works.

Better to point out what concerns you and suggest a reasonable solution.

It is reasonable to suggest that you propose 3 trained forensic psychological evaluators then let your ex pick one, and have them do an assessment of all the evaluations thus far and prepare a report (or whatever they do). Ask that your ex be given a deadline and a reasonable consequence for non-compliance, which would be that you get to choose the evaluator. If/when she does not comply with the evaluation, ask that any contempt of court order be paid for by her if it's about non-compliance with the motion. But in better language so that reads as fair.

Also, it's possible that your son has something and he is suffering from permissive parenting.

Being able to see that two seemingly opposite things can both be true will set you apart from BPD thinking, which tends to look like either/or. 

Does your L have trial expertise? Some are good at strategy and paperwork. Some are good in court, before a judge.

[jeanluc]

Whew. There's a lot going on.

Yes.

kells76 is asking great questions and insights.

I agree.

I would only add that contents of the letter positions you as an expert equal to the lawyers and clinicians. What you may want to do is position yourself as fact-finding in order to better understand these inconsistencies and excesses (19 diagnoses).

Your case has moving parts that are a bit hard to second-guess so this isn't so much about the exact details, more the type of thinking.

For example, you have concluded that 19 diagnoses is excessive. An alternative is to position yourself as concerned. Can the court help shine light on this problem? Sunlight is good for our cases.

Devil's Advocate (the BIA in my head) says because Mom is trying different things until something works. BIA will side with Mom regarding clinical engagement. And I, without the ability to meaningfully get medical records or get experts who can engage with Son, seem to be without the means to cast doubt as to the mens rea (criminal intent).

Nevertheless this is a wise approach and I see its difference from where I am right now. I had beed attempting to be this "fact-finder", though definitely with less clear of a role in my mind. My subtlety is wearing out as these experts and attorneys aren't getting it.

I think you are right that something is happening with the diagnoses. However, if you assert yourself as expert on the topic, you set everyone else up to argue with you, which is going to end badly. Professionals know better in family court, which isn't right but that's how it works.

Better to point out what concerns you and suggest a reasonable solution.

I am learning the hard way. Maybe so I won't forget.

I need to reframe my talking points to concerns to center around observed behaviors and pieces of the reports. There has been a development, so I'll refrain from doing it here.

It is reasonable to suggest that you propose 3 trained forensic psychological evaluators then let your ex pick one, and have them do an assessment of all the evaluations thus far and prepare a report (or whatever they do). Ask that your ex be given a deadline and a reasonable consequence for non-compliance, which would be that you get to choose the evaluator. If/when she does not comply with the evaluation, ask that any contempt of court order be paid for by her if it's about non-compliance with the motion. But in better language so that reads as fair.

Thank you for this example of legal reasonability. These are hard to find and get a sense for.

Also, it's possible that your son has something and he is suffering from permissive parenting.

Being able to see that two seemingly opposite things can both be true will set you apart from BPD thinking, which tends to look like either/or. 

Ex does Delusional Victimization in order to avoid. Now Son does, too. Is the Delusion real psychosis / autism / adhd / bipolar? It is so well practiced that teachers and providers can't tell anymore. Having witnessed the evolution of the behavior since Son moved to this state, from simple scary trolling stories to inflicting self-harm and channeling the hurt to act crazy (Hunter S. Thompson style) and avoid that moment's challenge, and without a reasonable explanation for why this is happening AND some sort of positive impact on the child I am hard pressed to accept what any experts are say about it.

A momentary aside, there was one psychiatrist who improved things with removal of all medications and bringing in one used in adults too traumatized to act in court. This was good. He also insisted Dad was a part of the zoom meetings. This was I believe, in Mom's eyes, unforgivable. So he was fired and replaced, with a new psychiatrist adding a new med, not even FDA approved for children for risk of increased S, and within 4 months of escalation this tragic event occurs along with alienation.

So back to the thread, unless a clinician acknowledges Mom's effect on Son or at least removes her from the equation for diagnosis, I cannot accept the validity of the results. Especially given that Son shows evidence of behaving differently in my home prior to the new med and the recent alienation.

Does your L have trial expertise? Some are good at strategy and paperwork. Some are good in court, before a judge.

I don't know how to tell. I looked up the volume of cases and she has a fair volume. Having worked with 4 attorneys in the other state and 2 here, I'd say she has a cautious approach and knows how the mainstream cases go but is not looking to push any boundaries or walk on any legal lines or create new case law.

Thank you for the thoughtful letter. Onward.

JL

[jeanluc]

News: FT sent discharge letter. It is not flattering.

I do not know how to summarize it.

FT blames my expectations of Son as the source of Son's anxiety. It seems reasonable to point out that FT's lack of expectations for Son and Dad were likely the primary reason for the therapy failure. There was no initial session in which FT set the expectations for Dad, which was expected and asked for, but denied.

FT may be like Mom in that she is unable to maintain boundaries or structure due to earlier experiences.

This is a hill of concern. I will not parent Son without the ability to set reasonable expectations and hold him accountable. Yes, he needs to feel uncomfortable when he makes bad choices. Mom's model of Delusional Victimization will work for a time, but not as well for him as it has and will for her.

News: I signed up for a parenting class. Encouragement.

News: Spoke with advisor. He recommends fixing the attorney issue. And if it can't, then dropping the case until Son is ready for a relationship. Writing letters instead of the awkward phone calls. Also recommended a therapist for guidance.

Onward. TODO: list of concerns reframed as the talking points for JL the fact-finder.

JL

[livednlearned]

Your situation reminds me of the one between my H and his son (now 23).

For background, I had a high-conflict divorce with n/BPDx, a former trial attorney. It went on for 4 years, with both of us in court on average once a month.  

My current H was also married to a BPDx wife.

She managed to alienate H's son from him. She moved to another state and all but put an end to SS23's relationship with H.

That son is now 23. He is on the spectrum (diagnosed with PDD or pervasive developmental disorder at age 2). During the teen years he was unmanageable and chose to live with BPD mom.

Over the course of a decade, SS23 went from hating H to recognizing how disordered his mom is.

What H did, with some counseling, is become neutral. He recognized that the alienation was stronger than anything legally he was willing to do, for better or worse.

By neutral, I mean that he stopped parenting. H followed the jujitsu model that Childress published and kind of "let go with love." I perceive that H had higher expectations for SS23 (at all ages) than SS23 had capacity for, given his enmeshment with mom. This was not easy for H, and he didn't manage to let go completely, but he has given SS23 a source of benign support an steady but distant presence. Jury is still out on where things will go but the last two visits H focused on not offering advice, mostly listening. SS23 is now showing interesting in coming to visit next summer building on two successful visits. It helps that SS23 has a positive relationship with me and he has sisters who have a positive relationship with H.

The variables do matter, so this isn't to say all paths lead to the same place. I just wanted to share that the jujitsu mindset did defang something, especially as the troubled relationship between SS23 and BPD mom got worse.

It has definitely felt like playing the long game.

pwBPD are remarkably good at keeping us stuck in a drama triangle and as the saying goes, you can't win a pissing match with a skunk. That doesn't mean giving up, it means changing tactics to ones that experts like Childress (probably the best, although his writing isn't easy to read, imo) and Warshak, author of Divorce Poison.

There is also RyanSpeaks, the formerly alienated child of a disordered family he calls The Regime. He has channeled his experience into a consulting business. Some of his work is free, and other stuff is behind a paywall, but I think some parents here have found value in his coaching.

[jeanluc]

I am sorry to hear that this has happened to you. It is deeply frustrating to me that one must compromise the well-being of a child because of the court's ease of manipulation into a tool of abuse.

I don't know that I can bow out without at least attempting to make my case before a judge. If they don't get it, then that really is all I could have done, and so leave the situation before they make it worse.

I tried to write the list of concerns, but reverted back to my old ways a bit. Here is the summary as I last see it. We have lost the Frame to Mom, so this is how we get it back.

Reframe into child's best interest
Mom has full custody. Dad has no visitation. Things are not working.

Son is not thriving. The last time he was seen to have been thriving was the summer of 2021 when he was with Dad for the Summer Visitation that included extended blocks of time.

The new Psychiatrist started February 2022 and, in addition to the already prescribed L, prescribed Lexapro on xyz date. Then, as had occurred with a prior SSRI, violent incidents and escalating behaviors of retaliation and rebellion occurred at school and home, though Mom denies it to the Psychiatrist, this is evidenced by violent outbursts documented at the aftercare program (date and others), increased difficulty transitioning to activities that he normally enjoys such as soccer and outdoor games [date], beginning to sneak around at night after pretending to go to bed, loss of appetite for foods usually enjoys and compulsive searching for sugary foods before bed (date), sugar seeking behaviors and unexplained rashes on his lips and decreased task performance for dishes and homework (things took longer than usual) (date), stole lollipops from the book fair and attempted to sneak downstairs at bedtime (date), waking up multiple times in the middle of the night sneaking around to play video games and eat sugar, refusing to do homework and demanding to do the high reward video games (date), getting into fights at school and making another child cry without remorse or affect and while evading detection (date).

Even with this, there is evidence that Son can and does have the ability to check his behaviors when judged necessary by him. This requires an appropriately challenging environment. This means with either natural consequences or logical consequences that are consistently enforced. For example, with his baby sister he noticed that loud noises disturb her sleep. So he stopped his sound outbursts and noises around baby sister. Further, he was proud to have been able to put her to sleep (date). A particularly challenging moment for Son was sitting relatively still in church for 2+ hours Saturday date, yet he did it.

If the current course of training Delusional Victimization goes on unchecked, the safety concerns registered by the BIA will be overcome by the escalating reality of the behaviors. The violence Son will be subjected to at the hands of the justice system or at group homes will vastly outstrip any of the questioned means or methods employed by Dad to bring Son to cognition of his actions.

I am concerned that Mom's Delusional Victimization is reinforced by the Court's unskeptical acceptance of it as necessary for safety and is the problematic model that Son mimics. This modeled behavior is seen by Son as the ultimate form of power in relationships: believable fear. Regardless of its rationality. Thus if one can conjure harm to oneself, regardless of the means, then blame it on someone else for this deeply personal problem, then they get a free pass on parenting fitness, emotional abuse, and neglect. This is deeply unfair, unjust, and detrimental to the child's interest.

Therefore the current safety concerns expressed by the BIA have less significance and consequence than the concern for getting Son into an environment in which he can thrive.

Given the character and personality and the environment with Mom which exacerbates or causes the problems with the minor child, it would make sense to provide resources and follow up. The attorneys have stated on multiple occasions that it is unreasonable to believe that there will be change. I am concerned that this view lacks insight into the role that the officers of the court play in maintaining the broken status quo. Both Mom and Dad are capable of growth and learning. I am concerned that the court will not engage the parents to change for the minor child's benefit and toward a thriving environment at both Mom AND Dad's home. I am concerned that Mom's safety concern is of greater importance than the well-being of our child.

JL

[livednlearned]

Can you articulate what your goals are?

That will help make the tactics more clear.

The post is meant to highlight the narrative you want the L to present to the court?

I understand you want visitation. Is it possible, given your situation, that you can advocate for your son legally, and separate that from visitation?

Meaning, you have no visitation, but you have not been stripped of legal custody. Is that correct?

I'm trying to help clarify as much as possible what your goal is.

It may seem odd ... but I wonder if you can pull legal levers to get a better therapeutic plan in place. If you get that, there are ways to set up milestones with reasonable consequences for non-compliance.

Otherwise, this plan, the one you are outlining here, seems to be means to establish visitation. Which I completely get -- you would give him structure. But that seems to be a higher bar given the one-down position you are in. It may come across as "best interests of the child," when the courts perceive it as "best interests of dad."

Thoughts?

[ForeverDad]

I know this doesn't make common sense — what does when an acting-out disordered parent is involved? — but if I understand it correctly, your son acted out when with you and complained about you, right?  You're the caring, reasonably normal parent and this just doesn't make sense, right?

One of the themes in Richard Warshak's Divorce Poison is that this can happen because the child (1) only feels free and safe to misbehave with you and (2) must side with his mother to avoid her wrath and pressuring.  Even if he doesn't realize it or can't put it into words, this is how he's dealing with it.

Does that make sense out of your nonsense?  Sort of looking through the binoculars from the other end...

[jeanluc]

Does that make sense out of your nonsense?  Sort of looking through the binoculars from the other end...

It does make sense out of much of the nonsense.

Son's Mom's undiagnosed BPD/NPD is hidden I think because she moves so frequently. Novelty of relationships is easier for her to maintain for short periods than after that first big disappointment (a challenging or correction to her).

It does make sense that the structure of my house and school is a good venue to express discontent through behaviors. He is being trained into BPD.

Book ordered. Thank you.

JL

[jeanluc]

Can you articulate what your goals are?

Goal 1:
Look like an adult in court while opposing the BIA on solid grounds by resuming visitation and letting the FT process occur on its own separate timeline.

There is no agreement in writing to end visitation. The concerns which I am aware of are met or superseded by greater concerns and compliance will occur on a timeline which does not jeopardize the well-being of the child. The downside is that Mom may file a PO and BIA may side with her.

The post is meant to highlight the narrative you want the L to present to the court?

Yes, basically.

I understand you want visitation. Is it possible, given your situation, that you can advocate for your son legally, and separate that from visitation?

Not sure I follow. I voluntarily suspended visitation due to BIA's concerns.

Meaning, you have no visitation, but you have not been stripped of legal custody. Is that correct?

No custody. Mom has full custody.

Visitation is 25%: one weeknight and one weekend per month plus holidays and summer block schedules. It was suspended by CPS, then reinstated. Then the BIA added their concerns and path to addressing them.

I'm trying to help clarify as much as possible what your goal is.

Goal 2:
Gather evidence to force the actors of the court to do something other than just pander to Mom's Delusional Victimization and train my Son to model this as the Ultimate Force within Domestic Relations. Force the court to make the decision in full cognition of the consequences of picking Mom's "Safety" from her delusions over Son's Well-being.

If the case is well stated, I am happy to die on the hill and see what can be made of it afterward.

Goal 3:
Reform. These courts are as sick as they are secret.

It may seem odd ... but I wonder if you can pull legal levers to get a better therapeutic plan in place. If you get that, there are ways to set up milestones with reasonable consequences for non-compliance.

I think this may be a possible compromise that could occur.

What do you mean consequences for non-compliance? For Mom?

Ideally, at least according to my cave-man understanding of Family Systems Therapy, Mom and I do FT first, resolve our unresolved conflict (the source of the pathogenic parenting), then bring in Son and show a kind of united front of parents, and do whatever Mom-Son and Dad-Son sessions to support each specific relationship on whatever they could work on. And yes, it is possible for Mom to move on this, but the threat of losing custody kind of needs to be there for noncompliance.

Otherwise, this plan, the one you are outlining here, seems to be means to establish visitation. Which I completely get -- you would give him structure. But that seems to be a higher bar given the one-down position you are in. It may come across as "best interests of the child," when the courts perceive it as "best interests of dad."

Thoughts?

It's a sort of shot across the bow. Look, BIA, I get your position. It's not good for Son. I am going to do what is actually best for my Son and I will comply in a way that does not further jeopardize him.

I get the notion that it may come across as "best interests of dad" and that's why I think it is crucial to get the right evidence that shows what I am claiming from the summer before last and prior supervised scenarios and possibly from school with teachers who had success with him. In all cases of supervised visitation the reports are good, even when Son starts to have a moment we managed it well together.

I have a real fear that Son will become a statistic for fatherless households (see https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=353755.msg13179674#msg13179674) if we continue this crusade for Safety over Sanity. Further, I struggle with obeying harm-causing rules. This is a sort of moral imperative to act. Mom, the clinicians, and the officers of the court are failing to help my Son. I have evidence of him doing better consistently in another environment. This has not been addressed or considered by the BIA or any clinician in writing, yet it has been allegedly communicated to all of them.

Sometimes I feel as though I may be fighting just for the sake of it. But the more nights I sleep on this, the more comfortable I am re-asserting visitation and bearing the consequences of a PO hearing in order to stem the harm of fatherlessness.

On an aside, at FT I do see that son desires a relationship with me. It is hidden amongst a contrary rebellious facade. Perhaps the alienation was not complete and if I assert visitation, he would handle it fine. Or I wait until he comes to me... though that seems dangerous given his dependence / enmeshment with Mom.

Time to give it some rest. Good night and thank you.

JL

[ForeverDad]

Another observation.  This comes from, oddly, from a romance novel I'm reading (Web of Love).  Every so often I've noticed the author may have had some experience with what we discuss here.  This one was:  "Children very readily accept almost any kind of life as normal."

Your son literally does not know what normal is.  All he can draw from is his life experience.  Once you manage to get a handle on how to regain your parenting authority, you'll have to deal with helping to recover and discover what really is a normal life.

[jeanluc]

Another observation.
...
Your son literally does not know what normal is.  All he can draw from is his life experience.  Once you manage to get a handle on how to regain your parenting authority, you'll have to deal with helping to recover and discover what really is a normal life.

This is true. He needs friends and other examples of families. Mom claims he has friends, though visiting them is not something that he is interested. I cannot get him to talk about them either. Would not expect her to understand what it means to have a close friend for a long period of time.

[livednlearned]

Goal 1:
Look like an adult in court while opposing the BIA on solid grounds by resuming visitation and letting the FT process occur on its own separate timeline.

I think your goal can be tightened.

For example:

An example of goals:

1. Resume visitation
2. Expand visitation
3. (Re?)Assert legal custody

From goals, then strategy:

1. Use a court-ordered custody evaluation to shine light on pattern of troubling behaviors
2. Use legal custody to make a motion for a structured therapeutic intervention
3. Establish a pattern of behaviors in the court of reasonable dad, disordered mother

From strategy, then tactics:

1. File a motion for a comprehensive custody evaluation including psych evals of both parents. Dad selects three forensic psychologists trained in MMP1 (or whatever number is happening) and gives mom the option of selecting the one she wants by day/date. Failure to pick psychologist by day/date gives dad permission to pick one. CE to be completed no later than day/date. Failure to have the report by day/date results in contempt of court and both parties must appear in court. Part of the CE involves a forensic review of son's psychiatric evaluations, and a psycho-social eval of son including teachers.

2. Another tactic might be: both parents are deposed. Lawyers depose both parties.

3. Tactics might also include proposing a structured therapeutic intervention to address son's increasing behavioral issues (I haven't read of this before on the site, it's just an example). Provide a list of three forensic psychiatrists, permit mom to select one by day/date, otherwise decision defaults to dad. Forensic psychologist interviews teachers and other caregivers, reviews prior reports w/ 19 diagnoses, proposes a structured intervention with timeline and dates for compliance.

The downside is that Mom may file a PO and BIA may side with her.

Are you in a new county, new court? How long ago did the initial PO or issues happen that led to losing parental access? In my court, anything longer than 6 months was not permitted, although of course a good trial lawyer would toss it out knowing it would be objected to because: theater.

No custody. Mom has full custody.

I think, then, your challenge could be demonstrating that you aren't in court because of sour grapes.

Visitation is 25%: one weeknight and one weekend per month plus holidays and summer block schedules. It was suspended by CPS, then reinstated. Then the BIA added their concerns and path to addressing them.

So this seems to suggest that your goal is to (eventually, because court works slowly, as you know) advocate for your son despite having no custody. Or, that you want to contest the loss of custody because circumstances have changed substantively so that you can advocate for your son, whatever court thinks is most effective for son's well-being.

In essence, you seem to want the court to recognize? that you have been stripped of legal custody and therefore you need it to act on your behalf because your son is struggling.

Mom's Delusional Victimization and train my Son to model this as the Ultimate Force within Domestic Relations.

Are you describing the problem like this with us because we understand? Or is this how you propose to discuss the problem/s in court?

Force the court to make the decision in full cognition of the consequences of picking Mom's "Safety" from her delusions over Son's Well-being.

I know you know that no one can force the court to do anything.

I think, from what I'm learning as I try to follow along, that you see substantive changes in your son's behaviors that concern you, and because you do not have legal custody nor enough visitation to help address them, and are experiencing parental alienation, you want it on record with the court that there are problems the court must address, because these issues can only be fixed by the court because of what has happened in mom's favor.

Somewhere I remember reading in Bill Eddy's work that of the 20 percent of high-conflict cases, at least one or both parties have a PD. In my experience, judges (and many lawyers) assume both parties have a PD, and both are driving the conflict. For many of us, we have to demonstrate that we are not contributing to the conflict. You probably face this to an even greater degree because mom has already leveraged the court system in her favor.

Goal 3:Reform. These courts are as sick as they are secret.

Sure. I get it. I put my lawyer's daughter through 4 years of private school and probably a chunk of college paying to protect my son. But this goal will end badly. You see in courtrooms how lawyers must be deferential to the judge and ask to approach the bench? That is the demeanor you have to have, in spite of the mess they've made of your life.

I've sat in family law court more times than I can count thanks to a litigious ex and I was never able to tell which of the parties were the disordered parent, or whether it was both. It's hard to tell in the short time we have in court.

The arguments each of us here had to make in court individually just as easily apply in  reverse. Meaning, I worked hard to protect my son from his BPD father, which can look the same as a disordered mother using the court system to initiate full alienation. The difference comes out in the pattern of behaviors that start to link together. I can follow court orders. I can propose reasonable solutions. I didn't once disparage my ex. I can produce documentation to back up what I say. Those things allow the court to see a pattern of behavior. Disordered people miss deadlines, they fire their attorneys, they rack up contempt of court motions like parking tickets. They argue with reasonable solutions, they don't follow court orders, they struggle to follow through on the simplest things, including things that work in their favor, sometimes only because you suggested it.

What do you mean consequences for non-compliance? For Mom?

Similar to what I wrote above, a reasonable consequence for non-compliance gets suggested in court. You do this because it closes loopholes on inevitable stonewalling, a favorite tactics of disordered, high-conflict people.

Court wants grown ups to come in and propose solutions. Instead, they see a lot of adult children who use court to tell them what to do. You want to be an adult who suggests a reasonable solution to the problem and create an alliance with the judge. When you suggest a reasonable solution that the judge thinks makes sense and seems fair, something that reasonable people can agree might work, you increase the chances of reforming your image as the bad guy. But we know that the minute you leave court, your ex won't do what was suggested because you proposed it, so it's important to also suggest a reasonable consequence like the example given above. It's reasonable to have one high-conflict dad choose three respected forensic psychologists and give high-conflict mom the opportunity to choose. That's fair. It's also fair that if mom doesn't choose someone by a reasonable date, then dad can go ahead and pick someone.

That's an example of creating so much reasonableness that mom's disordered behaviors look odd. Because my case was so litigious, we started to propose that dad pay for legal costs incurred due to non-compliance, but that took some time to get there. Your lawyer won't suggest this type of thing because lawyers aren't paying their fees, and they aren't living with the frustrating consequences. Also, wherever you can, minimize the opportunity for the judge to come up with a solution. What you want is for the judge to say, "Well it says here in the order that mom had to default to dad's decision if she didn't choose by day/date, so that's happening. Next."

Ideally, at least according to my cave-man understanding of Family Systems Therapy, Mom and I do FT first, resolve our unresolved conflict (the source of the pathogenic parenting), then bring in Son and show a kind of united front of parents, and do whatever Mom-Son and Dad-Son sessions to support each specific relationship on whatever they could work on. And yes, it is possible for Mom to move on this, but the threat of losing custody kind of needs to be there for noncompliance.

I'm not sure I follow. Safer for you is to propose that you do 1:1 counseling with a trained therapist, including individual therapy for you. See mama-wolf's experience with family therapy on these boards. In family law court, they call it therapeutic jurisprudence when the court orders third-party professionals to wade in, and that can go badly for us if the professionals aren't good at their jobs. Conversely, it can be game changing if the professionals catch on to what's happening. You want to be sure you have good professionals and are yourself aware of what dysfunction you maybe brought to the dynamics with your son. Court seems to love self-awareness and therapy but be careful how you use those tactics so you don't end of traumatizing yourself. Especially if your ex is covertly manipulative with professionals, which I think you have evidence that suggests this is true.

My apologies if I'm coming across like I know what will work in your situation because honestly, it's often a crapshoot what works, what doesn't. I just found out the hard way some of the things that started to turn the ship around for me. My judge even issued a gatekeeping order to keep my ex from vexatious litigation and that didn't work, for what I learned are pretty much dumb bureaucratic reasons, like whether or not a motion makes it through the clerk of court without catching it. All we can really do here is help you increase your odds knowing, based on collective wisdom, what has worked for people like us.

I think it is crucial to get the right evidence that shows what I am claiming from the summer before last and prior supervised scenarios and possibly from school with teachers who had success with him. In all cases of supervised visitation the reports are good, even when Son starts to have a moment we managed it well together.

Documentation is the king of tactics. Organize it really well, show a timeline if you can build one. I entered everything into Google calendar then printed it out in agenda view to show, mostly for myself, what happened. That helped me see patterns and gave my lawyer a leg up with her legal arguments.

Sometimes I feel as though I may be fighting just for the sake of it.

That comes across a bit in your posts. If this goes before a judge, your lawyer will do the talking, I'm guessing? Hopefully those sentiments won't be noticeable under the weight of the reasonable solutions you propose. And ideally, you will have a gangbusters lawyer who has talent as a trial attorney. Mine was not great at paperwork but she was fantastic in court. Maybe ask if you can go to a hearing in which your attorney is appearing, although some courts will kick people out for cases that are considered sensitive.

On an aside, at FT I do see that son desires a relationship with me. It is hidden amongst a contrary rebellious facade.

This was the same with my H and his son.

To be blunt, as difficult and contrary and rebellious and frankly awful as SS23 was in his teen years, H did not help himself.

People do the best they can with the emotional capacity they have -- the strain we experienced as the traumatized spouse is a thousand times worse for our kids, and we see the end results of that strain in their behaviors. Add hormones and social stressors and the awfulness of most school systems and it's a miracle our kids survive.

I wish H had spent more time working with a child psychologist to understand SS23 -- you are doing something similar by taking parenting classes. If you can afford it, and if you aren't already doing so, individual therapy can also be helpful not only from a legal perspective, but for our own benefit too (if you can find one right now that you click with  )

I don't think H recognized how much his aggravations with SS23 were evident to anyone around them. Those aggravations were warranted, but given the degree of alienation, H needed a lot of support to change his parenting to jujitsu his way to a better relationship. He's getting there now, but there is still a lot of work to do.

It can be very hard for those of us abused and traumatized by these disordered spouses to get to a place where we can honestly assess the way in which our own actions aren't helping, and then work from there.

I hope this is helpful. Things can look easier when you're not going through them. Maybe something in all this will make sense for your situation and give you some ideas as you move forward. What none of us can know is the level of competence of the people we hire, or the people assigned to our cases. All we can do is prepare as best we can.

LnL

[ForeverDad]

I don't recall reading how it came about that child's mother ended up with full custody.  Most courts default to some level of shared custody, then if there are disputes, it is addressed with a mediator, parenting coordinator or eventually in court.

Was this a result of the deal reached when her allegations were made long ago?

I had a lot of allegations upon separation that continued throughout my two year divorce but the outcome of my Custody Evaluation (far more in depth than a psych eval) was that were were to attempt equal time in shared Parenting in the final decree.

Frankly, it was the otherwise excellent CE's cautiously optimistic hope it would point the way to reducing the discord.  Didn't work, of course.  Within a few years I filed a Change of Circumstances motion to grant me the right to seek full custody.  By then my son had a Guardian ad Litem (GAL, child's attorney).  It was granted.

1. File a motion for a comprehensive custody evaluation including psych evals of both parents. Dad selects three forensic psychologists trained in MMP1 (or whatever number is happening) and gives mom the option of selecting the one she wants by day/date. Failure to pick psychologist by day/date gives dad permission to pick one. CE to be completed no later than day/date. Failure to have the report by day/date results in contempt of court and both parties must appear in court. Part of the CE involves a forensic review of son's psychiatric evaluations, and a psycho-social eval of son including teachers.

3. Tactics might also include proposing a structured therapeutic intervention to address son's increasing behavioral issues (I haven't read of this before on the site, it's just an example). Provide a list of three forensic psychiatrists, permit mom to select one by day/date, otherwise decision defaults to dad. Forensic psychologist interviews teachers and other caregivers, reviews prior reports w/ 19 diagnoses, proposes a structured intervention with timeline and dates for compliance.

Though you do not now have legal custody (impacting the major parenting decisions) there is basis for you to seek custody now, or if the court does not want to go that far then some level of shared custody.  LnL mentioned getting a Custody evaluation, almost a certain need in your case.  You need one of the best possible evaluators so be sure to follow the pattern she described, you vet a short list of experienced evaluators and ex can select one from your excellent list.  Court will agree that this is fair since both parents contribute to the final selection.  You cannot let her maneuver to have a free hand to pick her own professional since you know she would pick one with a bias or with clueless inexperience.

In my court, anything longer than 6 months was not permitted, although of course a good trial lawyer would toss it out knowing it would be objected to because: theater.

Same in my area too.  When I was testifying about incidents the magistrate stopped me at six months before I had filed.  Court policy is that older incidents are legally stale, not actionable.  However, one exception is if you are demonstrating a pattern of poor behaviors.

I think, then, your challenge could be demonstrating that you aren't in court because of sour grapes.

In all scenarios, be the parent proposing solutions.  Over time the professionals in the case will notice a difference between you (solution-oriented) and your ex (obstruction-oriented), though it make take time for them to discern it.

In my experience, judges (and many lawyers) assume both parties have a PD, and both are driving the conflict. For many of us, we have to demonstrate that we are not contributing to the conflict. You probably face this to an even greater degree because mom has already leveraged the court system in her favor.

Be prepared for the emotional slant of allegations.  You will try to reason but she will claim emotion-laden claims as facts.  They're not facts.  Yes, an uphill struggle, but you can do it.

The difference between parents comes out in the pattern of behaviors that start to link together. I can follow court orders. I can propose reasonable solutions. I didn't once disparage my ex. I can produce documentation to back up what I say. Those things allow the court to see a pattern of behavior. Disordered people miss deadlines, they fire their attorneys, they rack up contempt of court motions like parking tickets. They argue with reasonable solutions, they don't follow court orders, they struggle to follow through on the simplest things, including things that work in their favor, sometimes only because you suggested it.

Similar to what I wrote above, a reasonable consequence for non-compliance gets suggested in court. You do this because it closes loopholes on inevitable stonewalling, a favorite tactics of disordered, high-conflict people.

Court wants grown ups to come in and propose solutions. Instead, they see a lot of adult children who use court to tell them what to do. You want to be an adult who suggests a reasonable solution to the problem and create an alliance with the judge. When you suggest a reasonable solution that the judge thinks makes sense and seems fair, something that reasonable people can agree might work, you increase the chances of reforming your image as the bad guy. But we know that the minute you leave court, your ex won't do what was suggested because you proposed it, so it's important to also suggest a reasonable consequence like the example given above. It's reasonable to have one high-conflict dad choose three respected forensic psychologists and give high-conflict mom the opportunity to choose. That's fair. It's also fair that if mom doesn't choose someone by a reasonable date, then dad can go ahead and pick someone.

Neither my court nor the lawyers anticipated my ex would not comply with orders.  Or maybe they did but didn't care because they would get paid to go back to court to address it?  That's partly why my divorce took two years.

Learn from our vast collective experience.  We're not lawyers but we've "been there, done that".

[jeanluc]

I am digesting the above posts.

News:
Met with L and Firm Partner today.

They want to avoid litigation, due to my history of poor legal decisions. A history of violence (plead out of DV charge) and recent incident and Mom's Delusional Victimization.

They want to avoid shining light on Mom's psych eval because two of mine from before are bad (the GAL did not like me in the prior jurisdiction, and somehow weaseled his way into both even though both were privately hired). I get the sense L don't think I would pass a new one and, even if I did, we still would need to deal with the past two in court. And I am forbidden from submitting prior two to the licensing board for investigation because it, L says, "could go wrong" even though my therapist recommended it since the diagnoses were without diagnostic adherence to the DSM 5 criteria.

They think additional experts are just as likely to hurt us as help us.

It was said that if I believe there is a concern with conflict of interest, then "you definitely need a new attorney," said the Partner. He is a really good liar. I respect his skill. I don't know what he doesn't want me to know or not know. Is this what attorneys do when they don't want your case anymore? I am too dumb, too simple, and too loyal to quit when I believe in someone.

They believe BIA is the best way forward to increased visitation in this case.

Playing the BIA game requires committing to the belief that my Son is biologically handicapped and incapable of handling expectations (anything he doesn't want to do) and doing whatever the experts recommend.

I suspect this involves coddling Son and pretending he needs Roadmaps to avoid meltdowns and all these other avoidant strategies for the behaviorally inherited handicaps.

Random Aside:
I noticed Son was not making facial ticks on recent Psychiatrist televisit, but he was at in-person FT. Maybe he is afraid of me. Or maybe I stress him out. I expect the latter, as one accustomed to acting out might fear misbehaving around a Dad who maintains expectations. Or, as one might if hanging around a dangerous animal that will hurt you if you do something quick and dumb and spook it, like a horse. Both things, I wager, he needs.

Back to it, I think I can play the "BIA game" but I need more things in writing and I want to see my concerns addressed.

I wonder if I can drop the motion, dismiss him, and resume visitation without threat of his filling for the PO.

Back to goals. What do I want? I want my son to thrive. Why can't we give him an environment in which he can thrive? I and others have evidence that it can occur under the right and consistent circumstances... why, instead, do we seek the least worst outcome in which he is handicapped by presumption just because no one is willing to deal with Mom? Dad's not allowed, even though it's his job. Because Mom is afraid of Dad. The same way Son is, likely. Because she knows she does wrong. But don't worry. The BIA will protect you from your feelings. And if he doesn't, some other will. He will come to your rescue, whether it be Judge or Magistrate, Officer or Detective, Therapist or Social Worker. There appears to be no end to the well intentioned misguided heroes who wish to protect attachment abusers from themselves.

So this is where I need to understand Best Interest criteria. Is it legal to destroy a child as a parent in this manner? Or can the argument be made that "failure to thrive" is grounds for losing custody, particularly when willfully engaged in an alienating fashion?

Today was long. Tomorrow will be longer. Onward.

JL

[jeanluc]

I think we have answered the question about the type of attorney. They are not the litigating type, but behind-the-scenes evidence collecting type. I will begin speaking with "free" consulting attorneys to assess current attorney approach.

In the meanwhile, searching for and vetting FTs for Mom:Dad, Dad:Son per the discharge recommendations. Was recommended DBT based FT for this. Not familiar.
Also writing letters to Son.

Goal is to get Shared Custody (decision-making) and Tie-breaker. It is the only way to advocate effectively that I see for my Son, without allowing it to become a race to the bottom for behaviors.

JL

[jeanluc]

BIA added a new requirement that supervision be therapeutic due to diagnoses and lack of skills. Was unable to identify any such providers. A supervised visit was deprived as a result.

Reading Dr. Warshak's Divorce Poison. This explains the recent change in behaviors and relationship more so than the diagnoses. It also notes that the "inappropriate behavior" of several months ago as an isolated incident as a result of brainwashing by Ex, evidenced as beginning some time during the court's involvement in 2021, though accelerating in the beginning of 2022.

It was suggested by my therapist to study Borderline. Son has 9 of 9 criteria listed for adolescents. Same as Mom. It explains the inability to suffer criticism or boundaries and maintain positive self-image. It also explains why Son had behaved so differently in Mom and Dad's homes, respectively. In Mom's, he is hypersensitive to trauma. In Dad's he is less sensitive to it and sometimes shows off his scrapes and cuts to show how tough he is. The latter seems more adaptive. To bear our suffering without causing more grief to others... and yet, here I am. Sometimes we do need to ask for help rather than grin and bear it.

There are not 3 family therapists which are available in my major metropolitan area. There are 2, one cannot meet in person, and the rest are waitlists.

Warshak recommends staying in contact. Pleasant experiences. Disney Dad. However, with the added explanation that we do this because the child is brainwashed and not acting entirely of their own free will. Remember that this poor behavior is the Ex's programming and it is our job to (1) survive and (2) help the child to grow from the experience.

Onward.

JL

[jeanluc]

L: BIA believes most recent family therapy indicates problematic / threatening behavior with Dad, not PA. The account by FT justifies Mom's gatekeeping for safety.

So it appears to be legal to medically ruin the child if you have custody, to turn expectations into abuse, and parentally alienate by the promise of permissive parenting.

Mom has been hypersensitive and hypervigilant to all physical injuries, including even the most minor cuts and scrapes. This sensitized the child to also react / overreact to all forms of negative affect.

No one acknowledges the BPD link or possibility.

I am losing faith in the possibility for justice.

My lose-lose dilemma:
If I follow the BIA, I complete the alienation by my own hand. If I follow another path, the BIA will legally complete the alienation by his own hand.

Brilliantly played.

Thanks everyone. I am sorry to have wasted your time.

[BigOof]

I'm really sorry to read this, jeanluc.

You've been played into a Kafkatrap - there's no right answer, either path you lose.

I find Bill Eddy's material on PA more actionable than Dr. Warshak's. Try reading "Don't Alienate the Kids." Then read anything by Dr. Amy Baker.

Do you have a PA expert on your witness list? PM me if you need guidance on this.