Supersarahp Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 Was just about to respond but the Chinese takeaway's just arrived, I'll have to post properly afterwards, but... suffice to say for now about what I think about this latest of his? (preview): UGH! xoxo I feel a absolutely sick inside and panicked. Not about getting divorced - when I saw what it was I actually thought "good lets get this show on the road" but about the way he has painted it. It's lies, exaggeration and so so very twisted to make me look awful - and look like a lazy slovenly neglectful mother which is not true. I want the divorce but I DO NOT want to agree to his statement. I will call the solicitor in the morning. Oh yes he is trying to make me out to be some kind of alcoholic as well Link to comment
Fraggle Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 SSP, Been hopping in and out of various threads, and felt that I had to just post for support, it sounds terrible.... My sister went through a divorce just under 10 years ago and it was a messy affair and involved two kids, one 3 months old. He'd been off dipping his wick elsewhere... I really feel for you and think you're dealing with it (at least in your posts) remarkably well Deep breath, you've got great support on here : ) Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (Cheers, Frags) Sarah, Chrisledum & Chrisledee: _____________________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: ******* ******* To: Chris ******* Sent: Thursday, October **, 200* 11:36 AM Subject: Two things/See attached Christopher, Ref your last e-mail. I am having terrible trouble comprehending your attitude and ‘rationale’. Frankly, I’m not sure I (or any rational person, for that matter) ever could. Do I understand you correctly: You, the Adulterer - having had a full-blown 6-month+ affair during a climate of total and mutually-acknowledged marital trust, at the very least in terms of fidelity (a fact about which I have dated, written proof and witnesses), having also repeatedly failed to even attempt to disprove my accusation that it never stopped (e.g. withholding of my parental right to know your B&B address, continually synchronised movements with Jennifer's, "perfect pair of shoes", etc.) - are daring to suggest that if I don’t submit to your preposterous claim of ‘unreasonable behaviour’ you will cite ME as the adulterer ...simply because I, 11 months later, had a one-night-stand during a climate in which to all practical and emotional intents and purposes the marriage AND our relationship on any level was widely acknowledged to be long-rejected and -abandoned by YOU in terms of undeniable action??? …And in the next breath you tell me that you still care deeply for me and ask that we remain friends??? …using emotional blackmail in the form of concern for Joe’s welfare (as if your immoral, self-serving actions hadn't already damaged that)??? Do you really not know me AT ALL...after 17 years' close acquaintanceship?? Or are you in urgent need of a psychiatrist? If you should persist in pursuing this totally skewed, unjust and highly insulting objective then I am in no doubt that I shan’t be able to bring myself to ever again stand in the same postal district as you, let alone nurture any future friendship. And in view of your apparent ability to self-delude to such an incredible extent, I’d say it is likely to be in Joe’s best psychological interests, current and future, that I NOT encourage a friendship with you, actually. To do so in the light of your 'rationale' on this point plus the entire affair would clearly be demonstrating condonation of culpability-avoidance for a proven transgression against a vital social and moral taboo. I will most certainly NOT agree to those unfounded and grossly unfair grounds. The whole world has - finally - seen the extent of your propensity for unreasonable behaviour as epitomised by your appalling conduct before, during and since your affair. Even your most recent letter includes subtle but still very easily noticeable slights and insults, albeit all immediately but ineffectually denied in the same breath, wrapped in the guise of forgiveness based on the fundamentals of co-creationism, understanding and friendship. I don’t care whether it will cost £300 or £3,000; I am perfectly willing to sacrifice that amount of ‘freedom’ to see justice done. I have therefore instructed my solicitor to serve you with a petition on the grounds of Adultery. …which is the complete and irrefutable truth of the whole matter at hand, and is as it should be. (Perhaps you should simply have thought better of wasting hundreds of pounds on raising a petition based solely on your desperate need for self-vindication and one-upmanship? I may have repeatedly admitted my 50% of blame regarding the state of our marriage but you, and only you, chose of your own free will to deal with that by committing adultery.) If you wish to continue self-deluding to your own detriment then that’s your business, but please don’t try to solicit my compliance and assistance or you will be sorely disappointed. Furthermore, if you want this divorce to go smoothly and economically, and indeed wish to be 'fair', I suggest you desist from such blatant and gross illogic and unfairness henceforth. I do NOT want ANY further private communication from you regarding our divorce unless it includes your agreement to finally do what is right by anyone's standards and set a positive example for the man that your only child will one day become. PS: Please return our marriage certificate when you collect Joe on Sunday morning. _____________________________________________________________________ Aside from the gross injustice aspect, the reason why I was opposed to signing Chris's petition as if (I still to this day can't believe the utter nerve of the guy!) I were the adulterer was because of the aforementioned potential subconscious sympathy experienced by any judge. But, with, according to you, there being a lack of marital wealth in your case, you don't have that need whatsoever, and nor will that claim of his hold any sway on that score. What you MIGHT want to consider, however, is whether signing it would constitute some sort of passive acknowledgement or admission over your having been unreasonable, and whether said quasi-agreement could be used in any further campaign of his re child custody attempts. Again, not that his attempts could or would work, you understand. And I, personally, doubt that it could mean that rather than simply a case of you wanting just to get things moving and not caring about what grounds he cites. But, just to remove it from his equation in the first place to block any potential shenanigans on his part. This is why you need a solicitor. I agree it's utterly, utterly galling, though! But I suspect on some level, that's his whole point - to wind you up again. And on another level, to him, you WERE unreasonable... Because you wouldn't be his DOORMAT! So, Hooray! for his brand of unreasonableness and that you qualify for it! What do you think you want to do? Go with his petition or serve your own and decide that £300+ is a small price to pay for getting to take even just blank ammunition away from him? What's the situation, solicitor-wise, at this point, anyway? Did you appoint that cheaper one? xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Scrub that last question, just noticed yours about calling her in the morning (good!). But what's this? Oh yes he is trying to make me out to be some kind of alcoholic as well xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 You've obviously gone to bed. Well, anyway, you don't have a thing, I repeat, a THING to worry about. All authoritative parties concerned (social services, the court, mediation) are all too used to the thwarted tosspots of this world behaving like this, and - GIANT NOTE! - especially at a TIME like this. That's the thing, Sarah - *actions-actions-ACTIONS*. If you were such an unfit mother, how come only NOW is he trying to claim it? Oh, what... did he only just garner the b*lls to? Rubbish. He's been out for ruddy months already!... since end of December!... that's roughly 82 whole days. PFFFF. See? Hasn't got a leg to stand on. What his actions *do* prove, however, is that he does not, repeat does *not*, repeat - *NOT* - have the SLIGHTEST concern for his children's welfare and, in fact, worse than that! Own goal x 10. So don't you worry. Don't even bother having slight, niggling paranoia about it. You just LET him make a complete, own-nose-shearing idiot of himself. You now have great, highly solid grounds for petitioning the court to order a psychiatric assessment of him. xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I repeat: he is self-destructing. xoxo Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 Not gone bed - spent the last 4 hours talking to : Sister for 1 hour Brother for 1 hour Other sister for 1 hour Mother for 1 hour Conclusion : they all support me, they will help me in anyway they can. They all think he is mental . They all tell me to get a solicitor. Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Right this may take some time - he has no solicitor. This letter is from the court but he is representing himself. Any spelling mistakes, typos or errors are his and his alone (this is exactly as I have received it) Oh yes and I guess it goes without saying but most of it is complete lies, and if not it is twisted beyond all comprehension. Here we go: (the world according to chris) The respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent . 1. From 2007 onwards on an ongoing basis the petitioner often will work a 10 hour day. On returning from work the petitioner often arrives to discover the house is a mess and the children being unruly at bedtime. The respondent will immediately start being difficult and wash her hands of the bed time routine she has started. It would be left up to the petitioner to ensure the children are settled and have a bed time drink. The respondent will then inform the petitioner that he has to go to the shops for his tea. He must bring food and wine and on his return, prepare uniform for the children from an unworkable washing area with crumpled clothes in a dirty utility room. The petitioner on some occasions also has to return with items for the children's lunches and make them. The petitioner is the responsible for getting up in the morning as the respondent enjoys staying awake until 3am drinking wine and refusing abusively to get up and care for the children in the morning. The respondent will only hey up if the petitioner has left for work and then not immediately. If the petitioner challenges any if these duties he is expected to perform he is then shouted at in an aggressive manner until he conforms to the respondents wishes and needs again. From January 2009 onwards and ongoing until January 2013. The house key was snapped in the lock by the petitioners mother. This made the front door only lockable from the outside and secured with a chain from the inside. The respondent had misplaced her key and the petitioner offered to make her a copy. The respondent refused to have a copy and aggressively insisted on a policy of when no one is home leaving the front door unlocked for anyone to enter. This was common knowledge to the petitioners mother and all family members who the respondent asked to bring washing in and out of the house and all the respondents family members who were able to access the property without having to ask permission. The respondents sister has some knowledge on changing locks and in September 2012 replaced the lock with a fully workable new lock. The respondent gave the petitioner a key and kept one for herself. The respondent again lost her key and continued forcing the petitioner through being assertive and aggressive to leave the house unlocked as normal for her to enter all the time. On one occasion in August 2012 the petitioner had locked the door from the inside on an attempt to keep him and the children safe. The respondent had been on a night shift duty and returned from work aggressive that the property had been secured and not unlocked for her to access at any point. Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 In December 2012 the respondents mother had the children and then been relieved at 6.10pm by the respondent. The petitioner came home at 7.30pm to discover that the respondent was sleeping and the children were roaming around the house. The petitioner undid his cycling heat and ensured the children were safe and preceded feeding them and doing bed time routine. The petitioner then discover that the laptop had home missing and panicked that an unknown party had accessed the house due to his concerns over the door policy. The respondents mother called asking for the respondent and the petitioner answered and discovered that the respondents mother had moved it away from the children only. 12 rh february 2012 the respondent, the petitioner and their children attendec the respondents parents golden wedding annoversary. the occasion was a sit down meal in a rented hall with wine on the tAble. after the tables had been packed away and all members attending the event became more sociable. The respondent was too concerned about drinking lots o wine and alcohol. This made the respondent drunk and on pretentious. The respondent preferred other company than the petitioner and the petitioner focused the eveni g on looking after the children. The respondent had been involved on making the seating plan and had positioned the petitioner away from her. The petitioners family then Held a series of photographs of the family and did not explain to the petitioner why he was not involved or asked to partake in any of the occasion . He was left to feel that he was only involved to be a carer for the children. After the event when the respondents parents went through the photographs there was only one picture featuring the petitioner and that was of the back of his head. Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Four hours talking on the phone? Bloody Nora, LOL. Lots to talk about, though, eh. Mostly this, I imagine: "Is he for real?"; "What is WRONG with him!?"; "He actually *did* that? I can't get my head around it!!"... He is mental. No, I mean it. He *is* mental. He's mildly mental in DefCon5 but in DefCon1 you finally see it in all its glory (gory). That's the thing with PD. It's petty... but not if you have to live with it day after day after year after decade. And if it gets brought out more by stressors, then it's still petty in intention but NOT in consequence ...if you're not careful. You're really lucky, Sarah, perverse as that sounds - cos your Chris is, no offense, a lil bit thick. You imagine if he were incredibly intelligent with it and could connive in a way where he *wouldn't/couldn't* end up fingering himself as the culprit in the process? This is why I had to deliberately keep Chris wound up... fuming with me... all through the divorce process. It's only when he's spitting flames that he becomes stupid, see. He nearly wrecked one of Joe's Common Entrance exam results recently with all his conniving. It was to do with Joe's R.E. project about the Pope (which he and I had worked really hard on in the holidays (parent and child project)) - which counts as a whacking 25% of his total pass mark (and he needs minimum 51% in *every* subject to get into his secondary school of choice). Chris deliberately 'whoops, forgot' to pass on a vital request for additions/amendments that he was categorically and pointedly and repeatedly asked to pass onto me during the parents evening 2 weeks earlier when I, for the first time ever, was ill (puking) and couldn't attend. The RE teacher concerned, who's also deputy head (which I don't think Chris realised), was secretly FUMING with Chris when she found out (actually said, What a nasty git!), especially as Joe's normally top of the class. She hadn't known what he was like because back when we were divorcing, Joe was in the junior department. The junior teachers knew all about what he was like, though, because he'd been that sabotaging at the time and they'd actually conspired with me (because they were by then so ticked off with him themselves) to prove to the court how Chris had been remotely snooping on my computer activity. (Think I told you this already?) Anyway, the deputy rang me and said she will never EVER go via Chris again over something that important, and to let her know if he tried anything like that again. I only found OUT because Joe's very anal but very lovely and helpful form teacher emailed me and Chris together on b/h of the deputy in the belief that it was just a reminder where I was concerned about bringing the finished document in the next day. Sh*t hit the fan. Chris panicked when he saw her email come in and THEN suddenly phoned me - 12th hour, this was... 8pm the night before it was due in at the latest deadline!! Joe and I hadn't had a clue she'd been waiting for it all that time! ..."Oh, by the way", said he. "Take it you've seen Mrs X's email?", like butter wouldn't melt. His excuse? He'd forgotten, no, wait, he HAD told me, no, wait, he'd forgotten....oops, sorry, he can't help it, innocent mistake, he's crap at things like that, blah-blah-blah. Yeah. Right. Trouble IS, Sarah, he'd *literally* have to be a mental retard to be as ignorant and kack-handed as he makes out (- only whenever he's been caught being passive-aggressive, note). Again, had Mrs X not emailed, Joe would have automatically failed due to the work not being in on time. "*Joe* should have remembered", Chris said. "So it's *Joe's* fault!', he yelled. And, "I knew you'd take Joe's side, you always take his side over mine!" (Can you believe that, Sarah?...Can you? Joe's own father thinks it's a case of Him Versus Me?). Joe did remember...and then forgot again... and then procrastinated because it was a very hard project (even taxed me!) and he hoped it'd just go away...and then buried it mentally again. So what? He's just a kid, BEING a kid! What's Chris's excuse? And how come Chris never-ever "forgets" or "just didn't think" where his clients are concerned? (Mm-hm.) Who *does* that to their own child because they think getting at the mother or trying to get the mother's negative attention is more important than their own child's future life path!! Who gives their own child codeine when they really don't have to in the first place?!! Only a PD or someone in serious DefCon. But this is the thing. The Defconed, the merely temporarily PD-ed, CALM DOWN AGAIN, go back to being normal, reasonable, sensible, emotionally mature and with their priorities straight. What's Chris's excuse? He hasn't got one. And nor has yours. I know I've said all of this before, pages back on this thread, but it bears repeating. And this is why if you actually collected up all the petty-yet-not-petty drip-drips onto a piece of paper, you'd go, 'Woah!' and would see you've got grounds for the assessment. You'd need to include pre-separation transgressions, too, though, to show that he was *always* like that, not just now, whether or not nowadays it's far more noticeable. It was always there, is the point. And life will always ALWAYS put an individual under stress here and there. If he is apt to go doolally even when in charge of the kids and does similar or worse as abandoning the kids outside (what he believes) is an unoccupied house, then his custody should be supervised (better safe than sorry) until he's managed to behave impeccably as a parent for a certain lengthy duration, like a whole year. My Chris is more clever, subtle, slippery and CAUTIOUS than your Chris. I mean, how does one PROVE that he didn't "forget/not realise"? Plus he's really scared of me. So he'd never DARE push me as far as to try actually reporting me to SS as an unfit mother like yours has. He knows I'd make him suffer. He knows how far I *would* go to protect Joe, that I *would* die to do so. But, boy!... if he'd gone THAT far back when he was at his most thorn-in-side-like? I'd be rid of him by now! I'd have taken that opportunity and run so fast and far with it to be rid of him and the crap influence on Joe and Joe's life, before anyone had a chance to say, 'Tense, nervous headache?...Take Anadin'!! So.... Now you know how it feels to discover you have a member of your 'family' that's mentally ill, don't you. Not nice, is it. Like I say, they don't conveniently turn purple and start quacking and just sit there claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte. They're normal. And distinctly abnormal. Both at the same time. And at its worst, you can't ever be normal and relaxed, either... or you're done for. Mindf***. xoxo Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 At the end of the night the respondent was keen to ensure the party continued and without consent from the petitioner started inviting all members she came into contact with to attend the respondent and petitioners home for an after party. The petitioner ensured the children got home safe and walked home with the petitioner at 11 pm. The respondent then became unreasonable and started insisting to the petitioner that the 3 children stayed up and joined In the after party she had attempted to organise. The petitioner insisted it was 3 hours beyond the usual bed time and an exhausting day considering they were 6 5 and 3 at this time. The respondent stood in the way blocking the stairs and used abusive language aimed at the petitioner In front of all 3 young children as both the petitioner and the respondent disagreed on what was correct. The petitioner did eventually with great difficulty manage to get all 3 to bed. 15th September 2012 the petitioner became very ill with a sickness an diarrhoea big that had been going around at the time. The petitioner coul not get out of bed and needed rest to improve. The respondent was frustrated that the petitioner had become ill. The respondent abruptly told the petitioner to "man up" and deal with his issues. The respondent also stayed that she could not go to the local chemist immediately for advice as she was far too busy taking care of the children. In fact what the respondent actually did was hold a 2 hour social phone call with a friend and allow the children to be unruly in the home creating mess and havoc unsupervised. The petitioner felt too unwell to act against this behaviour in the meantime the petitioner contacted his mother who left work to attend a chemist and bring him the appropriate recommended remedy which was dhyoralyte ibuprofen paracetamol and Imodium instants. The instruction was to also drink plenty of fluids an a full day of bed rest. The respondent then went shopping in the afternoon with all 3 children and had been asked to bring back some food for the petitioner. The respondent returned and claimed she had forgotten the food. She also said she was due to work a nightshifts and needed to rest. She abruptly told the petitioner he must get out of bed immediately and go to the shop for anything he needed. The petitioner reluctantly struggled out of bed. He went to the shops and took all 3 children with him to give the respondent the rest she demanded. The respondent demanded this rest each week and the petitioner must care for the children whether ill or returning from his shift. The respondent insisted her rest was far too important over the petitioner as he did not understand working nightshifts. The petitioner felt on this particular day that this was unreasonable as the repondent was well enough to support the petitioners recuperation on this day. The petitioner was taking care of the children downstairs that evening when the respondent called his mobile to tell him abruptly that he is not letting her sleep and he needs to handle the children better. Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Right this may take some time - he has no solicitor. This letter is from the court but he is representing himself. Any spelling mistakes, typos or errors are his and his alone (this is exactly as I have received it) Define 'from the court'? Oh yes and I guess it goes without saying but most of it is complete lies, and if not it is twisted beyond all comprehension. Oh, trust me, I took that as read! I don't even have to READ it to know it's BS! (despite I obviously will). Chris once tried to accuse me of holding a knife against his throat despite all I'd done at the time was point it at him as a pointer/direction-gesticulator from accross a 15ft room as I made supper (chopping veg) to say, 'For the last time, LEAVE...ME... A-LONE...GO...AWAY!!!' (pointing the knife from him to the next room). because I had PMT and he was TRYING to wind me up (kick her when she's down, yeah) and had been literally following me from room to room going jab...jab...jab. He only accused me informally via an email, though (despite he copied it to his parents, trying to convince them he'd been justified in cheating and lying even to them (which had made his father furious on finding out, see)). Wouldn't have DARED try to misuse the court in that gross way! Desperate is as desperate does, and no holds barred. Anyway... Here we go: (the world according to chris) The respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent . 1. From 2007 onwards on an ongoing basis the petitioner often will work a 10 hour day. On returning from work the petitioner often arrives to discover the house is a mess and the children being unruly at bedtime. LMAO!!!! What? He may as well complain the kids got to eat boiled-egg 'soldiers' with their hands instead of a spoon! Sorry - this came from the COURT??? Something funny's going on here, I think. I think the court clerk realised he's a d*ckhead and decided simply to let him hang himself by putting his deluded nonsense on official record like this!! The respondent will immediately start being difficult and wash her hands of the bed time routine she has started. It would be left up to the petitioner to ensure the children are settled and have a bed time drink. No! Stop! This is too funny!! ("The respondent will sometimes burp and not say 'Excuse me' fast enough". It's called, 'I've had enough of them cos there's three of them and only one of me and I've been stuck in Prisoner Cell Block Aargh all day with them so now it's YOUR turn' and happens the world over! Aww, for goodness' sake. I'm not even going to comment until I've got to the end or I'd be here taking the piss all night long, Sarah. The respondent will then inform the petitioner that he has to go to the shops for his tea. He must bring food and wine and on his return, prepare uniform for the children from an unworkable washing area with crumpled clothes in a dirty utility room. The petitioner on some occasions also has to return with items for the children's lunches and make them. The petitioner is the responsible for getting up in the morning as the respondent enjoys staying awake until 3am drinking wine and refusing abusively to get up and care for the children in the morning. The respondent will only hey up if the petitioner has left for work and then not immediately. If the petitioner challenges any if these duties he is expected to perform he is then shouted at in an aggressive manner until he conforms to the respondents wishes and needs again. From January 2009 onwards and ongoing until January 2013. The house key was snapped in the lock by the petitioners mother. This made the front door only lockable from the outside and secured with a chain from the inside. The respondent had misplaced her key and the petitioner offered to make her a copy. The respondent refused to have a copy and aggressively insisted on a policy of when no one is home leaving the front door unlocked for anyone to enter. This was common knowledge to the petitioners mother and all family members who the respondent asked to bring washing in and out of the house and all the respondents family members who were able to access the property without having to ask permission. The respondents sister has some knowledge on changing locks and in September 2012 replaced the lock with a fully workable new lock. The respondent gave the petitioner a key and kept one for herself. The respondent again lost her key and continued forcing the petitioner through being assertive and aggressive to leave the house unlocked as normal for her to enter all the time. On one occasion in August 2012 the petitioner had locked the door from the inside on an attempt to keep him and the children safe. The respondent had been on a night shift duty and returned from work aggressive that the property had been secured and not unlocked for her to access at any point. What a crock of sh*t. Note how he tries to lofty up the fact he PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVELY LOCKED YOU OUT! Oh, Sarah. Any idiot can see what a load of severely and deliberately twisted nonsense that is. How brilliant that he's just shown himself up like that. Yep. Yours is definitely thick as pig poo. xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 OMG, there's more! Jeez. Even the length of it is him hanging himself. I am gaffawing my face off!!! This is like some comedy parody!!! You sure it's not a joke? xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 OMG, NO, MORE?!!!!! Yep. You can tell he doesn't have a solicitor, Sarah. No solicitor would have let him get this 8-year-old-boy drivel on court paper. S/he'd have *told* him it was suicide and that s/he wanted no part of it. [Lee Evans voice, please "Eeeeeeeeeez-a ment-al!". Still... Shows you why they won't promote him, eh. xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Actually, I take it back. A thick PD *is* much better than a clever one. At least the thick type makes you laugh your face off so hard you literally wee yourself a bit (I really did!!! xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 And now I've got to go wash and change my knickers (and I'm having to stand as I type this, LOL)!!! See you tomorrow morning. I think I *will* rip his statement to shreds, actually.... oh, what FUN... something to look forward to. Night-night. PS: You actually married that. xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Wait! PING!!! (BTW, am washed and in new kacks, in case you were wondering, LOL!) I know what he's up to! Yep. He knows no WAY would you ever sign to that! And he thinks you're too hard-up to feel you can pay £300+ yourself. So he thinks you'll hold OFF raising a petition yourself!... and thereby, NO DIVORCE. Ta-daa! (10p, please. xoxo Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Stupid phone died midway through. Ok nearly done ( the world breathes a sigh of relief) On 24th December 2012 the petitioner collected the respondent from work. The petitioner and the children were excited to see the respondent as they had been wrapping Christmas presents all day and wanted to tell the respondent what they had been up to. The respondent ignored the children and the petitioner as she was far too concerned about pursuing childcare arrangements with her mother in law and using bad language in front of the children. The purpose of collecting the respondent was to go on a shopping trip to spend nectar points they had collected all year. When arriving at the store the respondent was annoyed and angry as she had wanted to spend the points the day before. The petitioner had disagreed and suggested sticking to the original plan of spending the points on treats and extras. The respondent became difficult during the shopping trip causing the petitioner to walk away. The respondent would remain difficult throughout the trip and then apologise for it. At the end of the shopping trip the respondent asked the petitioner to get some pickled onions while she got a card for a neighbour and arranged to meet him by the cards. The petitioner arrived at the cards but the respondent was not there. The petitioner waited for 25 minutes until she eventually showed up. This is just one example of many where the respondent continues to shop in a supermarket and abandons the petitioner without communicating or shopping together as a family. On 26th December 2012 the respondent and the petitioner attended a family meal at the petitioners sisters flat in Weymouth. The respondent unreasonably enforced a discussion already covered before Christmas about childcare in the new year. The petitioner explained to the respondent that he had already communicated he could not discover his shift pattern for the new year as he was covering a team leaders sickness shift pattern and would know better once he returned to work in the new year. The respondent was unhappy that the petitioner was not calling into work earlier to find out his shift pattern. The petitioner explained that this was not the place to discuss childcare and that he would discuss it later. The respondent kept on pushing the petitioner to discuss the issue until the petitioner shouted that he did not know his plans. The respondent left the main living area and spent the majority of the occasion in the petitioners nephews bedroom. She remained there until the petitioner had thought about his actions and apologised for what he had done. The petitioner and the respondent seperated on 4th January 2013 and they have not resumed cohabitation. Since that date. L Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'll, like I say, have fun with that one as well, tomorrow. It's rare to get such brilliant comedy material, I must say. And I've got a feeling when I'm finished, your kacks are going to need changing as well. ;-D Night-night. xoxo PS: No, really. You ACTUALLY-ACTUALLY MARRIED THAT. Link to comment
Zanetka Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just found this thread today and read it.... Im so sorry for what you're going through Sarah, but I'm incredibly impressed by your progress!!! You are such an inspirational woman and dedicated mother. I wish I could offer you thoughtful advice but I'm only 20 years old and frankly, have not lived through as much as you have because of that. Also, Nattersmatter- who are you?!!? You must be some kind of amazing counsellor/ selfless, kind human being!! You have been such a great support for Sarah since the beginning. WOW. People like this exist??? Keep your head up Sarah, you are young and so strong! Your kids will thank you one day for your courage and determination. You CLEARLY put them first all the time and you attend to all their needs. Keep taking it day by day -Zanetka Link to comment
Supersarahp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just found this thread today and read it.... Im so sorry for what you're going through Sarah, but I'm incredibly impressed by your progress!!! You are such an inspirational woman and dedicated mother. I wish I could offer you thoughtful advice but I'm only 20 years old and frankly, have not lived through as much as you have because of that. Also, Nattersmatter- who are you?!!? You must be some kind of amazing counsellor/ selfless, kind human being!! You have been such a great support for Sarah since the beginning. WOW. People like this exist??? Keep your head up Sarah, you are young and so strong! Your kids will thank you one day for your courage and determination. You CLEARLY put them first all the time and you attend to all their needs. Keep taking it day by day -Zanetka Wow Zanetka thank you for your support and such kind words. Your post has actually made me cry (but in a good way) you are absolutely right about Natters - she's been like a guardian angel to me and I would not be coping half as well with this without her support. Thanks again for reading my tales of woe and thank you for your kind post. Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (You cry, I'll cringe, LOL.) Nah...just joshing. Thanks Zanetka. Yes, people like this do exist, they're all over this forum, in the legal profession, the therapeutic profession, medical, nursing, social services, charity, teaching, hippy (Kharma Kredit-earners)... You name it, they're in it. Emotional Caretaking cogs in the giant machine, I call them. Or in my particular case, everybody's mam (or dad?). So where have *you* been hiding, then, Zanetka, that you've never come accross any ( ?? Ah, well, you're here now. Start a thread (or take a seat with your coke and popcorn), and enjoy! xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I forgot MacMillan nurses. (Hhh! Slap my wrist!!) xoxo Link to comment
Nattersmatter Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Wait! PING!!! (BTW, am washed and in new kacks, in case you were wondering, LOL!) I know what he's up to! Yep. He knows no WAY would you ever sign to that! And he thinks you're too hard-up to feel you can pay £300+ yourself. So he thinks you'll hold OFF raising a petition yourself!... and thereby, NO DIVORCE. Ta-daa! (10p, please. Anyway, Sarah - did you catch this one? Oh, aye. He wants you back. ("...(wants you back!...wants you back!... wants you baaaack..for goo-ood).... whadEVER he said...whadEVER he did, he didn' mean it.... he just waaaants you...back for goo-oo-ood (wants you back!...wants you back!..)... wants you BAAACK for goo-ood." Feeling queasy yet? But, ah, but, wait, yeah, but ah!.... he's not going to get down on his knees and just TELL you... or (more's the case), BEG?!... (And, he's not just going to be ig-NOOOORED, Dan?!).....oh, NO.... who, HIM....? He'd rather *die*. I mean, he'll ACT it out. But not say it (nooo, never say it). So what he'd RATHER do is..... what he's doing... right now... with that petition as the cherry on the top of all his actings-out since you constructively 'chucked him out' with your huuuuge liberty-taking, boundary-crashing, jumped-up, insane unreasonableness (called, 'We need to talk').....trying to force YOU into being the one ....to beg HIM to come back!. On your knees, of course. Holding out the now-Grey, little finger from your right hand that you willingly hacked off in order to show him just HOW much you want him back. Doesn't that just make you go all mushy inside and then want to party hard, Sarah? "HOOO-............................................er....rayyyyy..er...mm....ew.................. And, now, of course, what with my prophesy having come true, I get to sing the I Told You So song, don't I... which in this instance, goes like this: "Aw, poo and bum, I was right". xoxo Link to comment
.thumb.jpeg.44db4c04df92b9d233296a0149430b4d.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.