How do I heal when we have kids?

[Supersarahp]

I trust your judgement implicitly but .... Are you serious?

 

If he wants me back what the???

 

His actions to me indicate that he absolutely emphatically does not want me back !!!

 

Spoke to citizens advice and don't think his statement is adequate grounds for divorce. Got a solicitors appointment tomorrow. Same one I saw before. Also mediation tomorrow night - God knows how THAT will go considering I will struggle to even be in the same room as him.

[Supersarahp]

Ps . I feel so broken. So drained - every time I stand up he shoots me down. It will pass and I will be stronger.

 

 

I feel a song coming on!!

 

 

The higher you build your barriers

The taller I become

The farther you take my rights away

The faster I will run

You can deny me

You can decide to turn your face away

No matter, cos there's....

 

Something inside so strong

I know that I can make it

Tho' you're doing me wrong, so wrong

You thought that my pride was gone

Oh no, something inside so strong

Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

 

The more you refuse to hear my voice

The louder I will sing

You hide behind walls of Jericho

Your lies will come tumbling

Deny my place in time

You squander wealth that's mine

My light will shine so brightly

It will blind you

Cos there's......

 

Something inside so strong

I know that I can make it

Tho' you're doing me wrong, so wrong

You thought that my pride was gone

Oh no, something inside so strong

Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

 

Brothers and sisters

When they insist we're just not good enough

When we know better

Just look 'em in the eyes and say

I'm gonna do it anyway x 4

 

Something inside so strong

And I know that I can make it

Tho' you're doing me wrong, so wrong

You thought that my pride was gone

Oh no, something inside so strong

Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

 

Brothers and sisters

When they insist we're just not enough

When we know better

Just look 'em in the eyes and say

I'm gonna do it anyway x 4

 

Because there's something inside so strong

And I know that I can make it

Tho' you're doing me, so wrong

Oh no, something inside so strong

Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

[Nattersmatter]

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 .

 

The responded refused time and time again most unreasonably to get herself tattoo-ed with the capital letters WELCOME and lay, waiting, at the foot of the threshold of the front door of the FMH.

 

1. From 2007 onwards on an ongoing basis the petitioner often will work a 10 hour day.

 

From 2007 onwards on an ongoing basis, the petitioner often would do his utmost to avoid his home, his understandably very weary and emotionally-drained wife and not one, not two, but three naturally boisterous and demanding toddlers by staying in the office playing Tetris until the office cleaning superviser told him he had to go because it was time to lock up (and, 'anyway, didn't he have somewhere he was supposed to be?').

 

On returning from work the petitioner often arrives to discover the house is a mess and the children being unruly at bedtime.

 

On returning from work, the petitioner often arrives to discover what family life with three very young children and a completely isolated and over-run wife is like. The respondent found it didn't suit him because it wasn't a convenient bed of roses.

 

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 immediately ask the petitioner for help-help-pleeease-help-meeeee-why-won't-you-heeeelp-meee. At his repeated failure to respond based on this excuse and that excuse that just needed doing first (always first), the respondent - now in or close to tears of exasperation and emotional distress - will try to find SOME way to appeal to the better nature of the petitioner to give her a dangerously overdue break after, as an ongoing routine, having had zero human contact since the very early hours of that morning, bar aforementioned, yelling, screaming or crying whirling and very clumsy and messy little dervishes (who would whinge 'mum-mum-mum' about 100 times each within that period), in order to avoid a nervous breakdown. The petitioner then had to spend most unreasonable quality time with his own (due to the routine initial delay in cooperating) now-even-more-hyperactive children and in the process provide not just one but three cups of milk or water (which required an enormous deal of hand-to-eye coordination and mental taxation). The petition then had to lie comfortably on a bed and READ for 10 minutes (using amusing voices and everything).

 

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 respondent will then inform the petitioner that because she has been Prisoner Cell Block FHM for fifteen or more long hours without a single break, totally unable to go anywhere all day, and now so exhausted she is hallucinating and literally tearing out her own hair, there is no food or desperately-needed wine in the house so would he please pop to the local shop. On hearing the unsympathetic response (attempts at excuses), including about how tired *he* was from having been sat behind a comfy desk all day, surrounded by adults who talk amiably chatting sense and at normal audible level (and sometimes with pleasantly long pauses), the respondent would dare to become distressed and, incredulously, yell things like, 'But you HAVE to, I've just TOLD you - there's nothing for our supper!', sometimes adding, 'And you promised you'd remember to bring those bits and pieces home with you tonight!'

The petitioner on *some* (rare) occasions when the respondent was close to passing out on the floor from over-exhaustion, have to buy some shop-pre-prepared sandwiches, etc. and put them into not one, not two but three lunch boxes whilst the respondent merely (sort of) sat in a chair, gibbering and crying or staring straight ahead like a zombie.

 

The petitioner is the [one] 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 petitioner found it most unreasonable that, despite he had to get up to go to work, anyway, the respondent finds it reasonable to expect that he will help her try to make up for seriously lost sleep and abject stress effects through him being the one to pour not one, not two but three bowlfuls of cereal with milk, adding a spoon to each and ensuring the children would sit at the table and eat them (nicely).

The night before, the respondent would very selfishly be so over-stressed as well as despairing about having received the opposite of marital willingness of support and cooperation, or same only under patent duress, that she would be unable to relax enough to cease crying or wimpering and sleep until she had had a few hours featuring a glass or two of wine, as a substitute for sleeping pills (which were out of the question with three children) in which to wind down so that she might get a few uninterrupted hours' kip before the whole nightmare hamster-wheel-run would begin again. This constant, daily level of exhaustion, sense of isolation and abandonment-based despair, the respondent enjoyed immensely. Given the choice between a few glasses of wine and needing hours to wind down (and tend to the most minimal of her own needs, e.g. washing herself) or some actual husbandly care, attention and actual support above the bare minimum, the respondent would obviously have gladly chosen the former. The petitioner in fact expected the respondent to give the wine to the children like all good wives (on the fantasy telly) so that she could plug herself into an electrical charger for 50 minutes before giving him wild conjugal rights all night long followed by a fried breakfast brought up on a tray and a rose sticking out of her anus.

 

The respondent will only hey up if the petitioner has left for work and then not immediately.

 

Having to try to awaken from abnormally deep sleep squeezed into just a few hours, the respondent would find a 'Yours! - I'm off!' yelled up the stairs (followed by a low and muttered, 'You lazy b*tch') sometimes woefully ineffectual to rouse her from said coma. Rather than bring the respondent a cup of tea, etc. and ensure she had fully awoken so that the children would not be left unsupervised, the petitioner felt that this quick shout up the stairs or the sound of the front door slamming, should suffice. The petitioner wishes it to be noted that the respondent consistently refused to actually be superwoman or his children The Waltons (as teenagers), and that it was not at all as it is supposed to be (like on the telly).

 

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.

 

If the petitioner refuses for the one-thousandth time since they were born to do a BIT of his bit as husband and partner to a dangerously over-worked, over-harangued, over-spent wife, then the respondent, rather than merely curling up and dying in a corner like a good little wifey, dares question or re-state her request and then, out of exasperation, demands beseechingly that he help, and dares get agitated in the process out of her sense of abject despair. Again, the petitioner would like the court to note that it is not like it is on the telly or misogynistic movies. The petitioner would have preferred that the respondent, his wife, the woman with 6 pairs of hands and super-human patience and energy, had had the children already fast asleep in bed, house showroom-clean, Disney birds and deer long-departed, thereby disposed to greet her husband at the door in a sexy see-through negligee with a relaxed and beaming smile, hair gleamingly in place, the smell of a la carte cooking permeating from the kitchen, dying to give him a lengthy BJ before then removing his shoes and socks, kissing and licking clean his cheesy feet, lovingly nibbling off his toenails using her teeth, all to adoring purrs of 'Me rove you rong time', followed by said loving him long time (over the dining room table and swinging from the chandelier/ceiling-light-fitting), without said restaurant-quality meal burning or drying out in the meantime (and all external house maintenance, including gutter-clearing, completed). The petitioner believes the respondent was more than capable of this achievement but deliberately failed to execute it to p*ss him off and demonstrate her gleeful alienation from the real world.

 

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.

 

The house key was deliberately snapped in the lock by the petitioner's mother. This act was a deliberate conspiring between mother and daughter to piss off the petitioner. He knows it was because that's what he would do when maltreated, insulted and slighted year after year after year. The respondent, being by now mainly asleep whilst awake, had misplaced her key (or had had it removed from her purse by the chief male fairy when she wasn't looking) and unreasonably expected the one member of the family who could drive a car and had any free and unhampered time AND the depression-free energy to be the one to organise the cutting of another for her. The petitioner obviously disagreed or said, 'In a minute' and 'Next time' and 'I can't afford a locksmith' to stop the b*tch from going on and on about it. In order to make lemonade out of lemons, the respondent noticed that this cloud held a silver lining by way of allowing access to her one and only occasional support network at times when her husband was out at work, anyway, and accordingly tried to make the best of the bad situation. The petitioner understandably complained about this conversion from negative to positive of his vindictive, passive-aggressive scheming attempt and flouting of his 'authoritah' by her and her support network, and insisted this practise cease (yet did not agree to calling a locksmith). In response, out of desperation, the respondent asked her sister to intervene at no charge (which she did).

 

Being still over-taxed and harangued, barely able to remember what day it was, the respondent again did not notice or realise that the key-stealing fairy, the one that rejoiced at her being locked out in the wee hours of the morning following a long, hard shift after hours previously of looking after three boisterous and demanding children and the house (because it was likely to force the respondent to cease loving the fact she had to work nights), had for a second time visited her purse. The petitioner found himself completely unable and unwilling to pop into town on a weekend or during his lunch hour get another copy cut from his own key and, therefore, the respondent at least insisted he not lock the door when she was out because she did not graciously accept the idea of her, and often the children, standing around outside for hours at a time, waiting for him to get home from work, as well as her having to sleep on the lovely cold and wet grass or hard, freezing patio slabs in their rear garden all night long until morning when he'd finally hear her. She had had the temerity on such occasions to become angry and demonstrate it to the poor petitioner.

 

F***

me

You

MARRIED

that.

 

The man, boy, thing, Dante-esque creation is utterly, utterly, utterly....... uh!....cuh!....tuh!....puh!...buh!.... ("HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP, MAD MAN ON THE LOOSE!!!!!!").

 

You, missus, for over a decade, were officially emotionally and financially abused.

 

Happens to the best of us, eh?

 

And then it ends. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.................

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

Which prophecy?

 

Which prophecy? LOL. These ones:

 

1. I asked if he wanted me to leave (not that I would have) he said "no no I don't want you to leave" I said I was confused then.

 

Allow me: If YOU'RE the one to leave, you're the one who has control and might find you preferred the situation and might not come back whereas if HE leaves, he can have control over coming back again. He knew even at THIS point that he wasn't leaving-leaving. He's NOT left you - he's doing a one-man protest march, one that you'll never forget. No WONDER he's panicking that you've seen his five, taken it for being genuine money, and have raised him five (by acting like it's real, not chatting on the doorstep, even). Geddit?

 

If he's trying to make careful conversation, it could be for any/many aim(s) but I'd need to know the reason he ended it to be able to identify which:

 

[a] He's feeling typical post-abandoning paternal insecurity, like he should keep on your good side in case you try to wreak revenge using withholding of or deliberate un-cooperativeness with custody or in case the kids might refuse to see him without your encouragement (plus he might need to seek your advice given that you'll have been better versed in childcaring whereas he's out of his comfort zone for now);

He's wondering if he did the right thing and is trying to stop you from detaching too much (which your seeming lack of interest in chatting could signify) in case he needs to reverse his decision and get taken back;

[c] He only bailed out because of an over-long period of conflict devoid of any proper resolution, but now that he's away from the storm and feeling calmer he's sensing he went overboard and is trying to warm you back up (for the same above reason);

[d] He's not yet used to feeling so alone and you're his only 'friend'.

[e] He cheated and went to be with the mistress but, having reality burst their rosy bubble and too prematurely, it's causing negativity between them... hence second thoughts are beginining to creep up on him.

 

 

 

1. Am on the bus home now! Of your options nattersmatter I think he is closest to C - he only bailed because of an overlong period of conflict without a proper resolution . Not sure about him regretting it though.

 

He bailed out for many reasons - albeit they all belong to that 'C' theme:

1. He co-created that overlong period of conflict thanks to the fact he was raised by an overbearing mother who 'kicked' any assertiveness out of him and trained him to bottle things up majorly as well as stunted one side of his psyche with all her 'no, no, mummy do its'.

2. He is a child in a grown-up man's suit (again, thanks to his rearing).

3. You were gagging for kids from a very young age (because you were more mature than your years even back then) and he fit the bill as a 'practise dolly' yet wasn't quite so cute and diverting once you'd sprogged REAL kids and found yourself with a total of four instead of three.

4. His mother refused you any support, either, so you don't like her and she CERTAINLY doesn't like you (not least because SHE HERSELF is a child in a grown-up woman's suit) because it was your fault he didn't return home after that time he'd fled, doncha know (so HE'D told her in his desperate attempt to avoid her usual flack). He knows this and part-uses his mother against you whilst his mum obviously tries to put the knife in any chance she gets. ...Yep - this is in part a tug-o'-war between you and his mother. Fortunately, she can't give him lover-type affection and sex and nor is she the keeper of his kids and his potential, court-backed wealth-halver/destroyer (in fact, you'd get more like two thirds having 3 kids if it came to it).

5. Since for longer than he can remember, you're suddenly all over him like a rash again and heeee's LOVIN' IT (with fries and a milkshake)!

6. He can sense you're in two minds over staying married to him and have been for years. He's very worried about that yet still caught in this trap of playing high-stakes poker (backed by his mum). Normally, it's the man who stands stoic and civil/formal on the doorstep and the wife who's trying desperately to get him to chit-chat and "remember when...".

7. AND, of course, another part of him genuinely feels overloaded with angst and panic and confusion.

8. If you become mum again, he'll tell real (pff!) mum to butt out.

9. This is all great foreplay (much-needed, I might add).

 

 

 

Yep. She knows what he's up to. And it ain't Leaving You.

 

xoxo

 

 

 

Yes, we can SEE he wants to preserve his family. But I'm talking about the LOVER

 

Even if he isn't in love with you any more (particularly because he's transferred his affections to the mistress), he still has a LOT to lose. A *LOT*. Possibly his kids, most of his wealth (putting paid to all his years of hard, hard work), his status (gone is the former marital home, here comes the dingy flat or bedsit), his material assets, his comfy retirement, his good relations with his in-laws, some of your mutual friends (if not all), his best friend (you), his childcare guidance officer (you), HIS BONA FIDE FATHERHOOD,.... the list, the ripples, extend farer and wider than one at the time imagines. This he needs to protect or pre-salvage.

 

I think he's either:

1.a) Keeping you as back-up in case he changes his mind/the new relationship proves dissatisfactory when given more opportunities to be together

1.b) Keeping you from feeling you have enough cause to start divorce proceedings.

2) Enjoying having you helpless and at his mercy (for once); it'll be a huge boost to his sense of flailing power and ego as well as a way to spend his years-worth banked-up resentment.

 

Alternatively, keeping you in a state of uncertainty as to what his intentions are (reconciliation or irreconciliation) can be a way to make you ADAPT AND DESENSITISE to his cake-and-eat-it situation whereby you're just happy to have your husband or the kids' father back, REGARDLESS of there being another woman now ensconsed on his side. I had dealings with a woman who put up with this situation for (hope you're sitting down?) 17 NON-STOP YEARS(!!!). It destroyed her, chip by chip by little chip... Anti-depressants and sleeping pills a permanent feature, no self-confidence, prematurely aged face and body, skin and bone (enough to make an anoretic panic and head for the cream cakes!), no joie de vivre whatsoever... half dead already.

 

...Otherwise, as I say, he is buying time and manipulatively retaining the control as exclusively his so that only HE gets to decide whether and when reconciliation happens or not.

 

Despite you don't engage negatively or play ego-poker (point scoring and batting back) and remain sadly accepting and passive, you must set a deadline in your head, a point whereat any prolongation of his shilly-shallying under the pretext of, 'Oooh, the pressure, I have to keep away from the pressure, boo-hoo' (when, if you think about it - he managed to withstand much greater pressure before without having to walk out!), you say nothing but make that solicitor's appointment and start the divorce process.

 

It is piss-easy for a man to persuade his wife to abandon her petition regardless of having been lodged. And by persuasion, I'm not talking him playing for more time via manoeuvring her by pushing her buttons and pulling her levers, AND ESPECIALLY NOT THOSE OF THE KIDS OR YOU AS THEIR MOTHER, either. I'm talking - 'Right, I'm coming home NOW and all normal programmes will resume as we work together to mend this marriage, NOW!'

 

But if you're now so newly sure he's so resolved never to reconcile, then, that's good news because it means you can do what it takes to BOTH encourage him back whilst mentally and practically preparing for imminent divorce - via passivity, contrived responsiveness to any positive initiations by him combined with zero rising to any negative bait, knowing you have everything to gain in EITHER direction yet with nothing more to lose from here on in.

 

As explained (re staying passively accepting and sad): Even if you head for divorce, that doesn't mean you're not simultaneously fighting for the marriage; you are just refusing to stay in paralysis thus taking the ONLY path open to you. Because saving now relies on HIM - HE'S seen to that... he's tied your hands....in which case, so be it... let's see what he's made of at Crunch Time, then (or not).

 

 

 

YOUR MONEY WAS ALWAYS "KIND OF" SEPARATE? And IF YOU COULDN'T *CONVINCE* HIM??? YET A TENT FOR *HIMSELF*????? And YOU *NEARLY ALWAYS* ENDED UP HAVING TO SUBSIDISE HIM??????????

 

Oh, Sarah. No WONDER you're "found your wings" and are sounding so liberation-drunk! Can you please Google methods of financial abuse and see if you can see yourself? I'm betting big money you will.

 

He'll be back? Oh, trust me - what with you having taken that string out of his hands from which he was attempting to dangle you and meanwhile rising up like a Pheonix, unless the guy has so much false pride it constitutes cutting off his nose to spite his own face - he is going to be GAGGING AND BEGGING for you to take him back! And if he WOULD cut off his own nose - who'd want an idiot like that anyway?

 

You won't want him, though. And I don't mean, because you've just said so - you're bound to say that now but...things can change. BUT, you definitely won't ever be finding yourself wanting him back UNLESS he not just SAYS (blah-b*llocks-blah) he'll change his ways towards a fairer dynamic and marital society if only you'll try again, but SHOWS it!

 

 

I also very early on told you:

 

The man is a....... well... not a man, is he.

 

I ruh-huh-huh-HEEEALLY do not like him, Sam-I-Am. Not in a box (6 foot under), not with a fox (chewing his face off), not in the (liquid nitrogen) rain, not in a (wood) plane.

 

To which you, back then, replied:

 

Hahah - he really isn't THAT bad - just incredibly immature - he always was but at 18 it was funny - 32 not so much. I remember ages ago we had a conversation where we agreed that I had changed and he has not. He was all like "but I haven't changed at all" and I was thinking "neither have I - I have just matured" but how do you tell your husband you think he is immature?

 

 

 

And then I said:

 

PS: It IS possible, however, that C is wanting to have a marital holiday - to, as you put it, sow his wild oats - yet open to being lured permanently away should someone prove to be (by his standards) better - and that he sh*gged Janine just the once or twice (as had her attaching hard to him), and she, meanwhile, swallowed his excuse for the fact he wasn't suddenly going to leave you for her being because he still loved you and wanted to stay with you.... which obviously, he has now proved was BS. That would equally explain why they suddenly cannot stand each other: she's a threat to his little game where you're concerned whilst he's proven he used her like a free prossie (albeit she is fighting that fact).

 

 

 

GOOD FOR YOU!

 

And, yes, he does think it's funny. He thinks he's scoring a huge point off you which is in punishment for the fact you were supposed to sit quietly and smilingly like a good little slave whilst he had his carte blanche marriage holiday (after which he'd either have come home again, satisfied, or walked off into the sunset with the first woman he deemed better for him and his need to have total power and exploitatability over her), you cow, you.

 

But he doesn't realise that it's going to prove an own goal. In which case, Sarah, worry not... Goes around = Comes around, both financially via human hands and then, later/at the optimum moment, Fate's hand.

 

 

This is the thing: not even now at Crunch time, i.e. the point where he realises that oops-sh*t, he's gone too far in his bid to gain power and leverage over you forevermore so that you'll revert to the type of wife who never complains at shoddy treatment (which bid has backfired and resulted in you gaining power and leverage over him), can he swallow his false pride, apologise, ASK TO COME HOME, vow to change, and ACTUALLY change his ways. He's still trying to say it all and achieve it all through face-saving acting out, hence, as we now see, him raising THEEEE most ridiculous petition that no woman (that isn't a solicitor) in her right mind would sign to. So that you WON'T.

 

He's too immature to take life and marriage and kids seriously or demonstrate a shred of humility (his mal-developed ego won't let him) so he's still playing kiddie poker. And this petition of his is a huge bluff. It's intention is to scare you on various levels so that you'll fold and beg him to stop the hand.

 

The reason he thinks you'll fold instead of raise your own petition is because he's seen all this time pass with you NOT contacting a solicitor and thinks that's because you still want to reconcile, and enough that you'd return to a marital environment where absolutely everything is on his terms alone (and stuff your emotional and practical needs, even for fidelity).

 

He wants reconciliation but NOT following renegotiation of the marriages terms. He wants his terms more tightly enforced so that you'll never again emotionally distance yourself from him like you did as a compromise over pleasing yourself (leaving him) and catering to your children's current and future needs (for a 2.4 set-up).

 

To him, this is just normal because it's how he was reared. He doesn't realise that since he left, you and the kids genuinely ARE happier and healthier. He thinks you're playing poker, too... hence, after a long string of hands played by him, he's raised the stake via an act which appears threateningly dangerous enough (raising of a divorce petition) and yet in reality and in effect (due to it being unsignable-to) is a Mickey Mouse version.

 

His ego needs YOU to beg for reconciliation because his getting to continue to be a despot - AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND - relies on that request and, particularly, that begging, so that he'll rest assured that he can do what he likes, when he likes, how he likes, and this time you'll be a doormat to perfection! If HE begs or even asks, you can start stipulating better terms, can't you...and he can't have that because only the master-servant relationship is his comfort zone... the only one, in actual fact, that he's programmed to find pleasurable.

 

So you'll never GO back into that horrid marriage but HE thinks and hopes you will. Because you managed it before. But that's the thing. You matured. You grew in confidence. You stopped being too constantly knackered to stand up for yourself and your birthrights. And you stopped worrying quite so much about the kids' environment because by then at that age they'd already gotten the crucial 'colostrum'. They didn't need the actual breast milk (particularly as if was 'off' anyway). You grew in self-esteem and realised you do NOT have to settle for abuse and be damned grateful because at least you have a marriage and at least your kids have a 2.4 environment. And then you left him (in your heart and head... your physical self stayed put out of mere Needs Must). And then he started (with his negative actings-out and manipulation and torture attempts) doing his version of begging for unconditional love and attention again. But you weren't going to until he agreed to your conditions for fairness and actual TALKING (how dare you). So he saw your Five, raised it Five.....

 

.....and .

 

*All* abusive partners are so overly ego mal-developed and emotionally stunted to the extent of Mentally Ill. That's *their* version of love. It's not a two-way thing, it's a one-way thing. Master (them), Slave (you). That's your place, that's your comfort zone, that's what you were put on this earth to be...and you love it. Must do. Because otherwise you wouldn't stand for it. You'd leave. Course, you DON'T love it, you simply have no choice but to stand for it because you've been stripped of your energy and power and means (with lots of help from them). But, ah, no, it's not that... it's because you love it, really. Set you free and you'd probably wither up and die, doncha know. If you DO happen to get free and DON'T wither up and die, in fact, the opposite - "WHAT?! THAT CAN'T HAPPEN?! THAT'S NOT HOW IT IS?!"....oooh, the rage... they've just tantamountedly woken up and realised they're wired up to the Matrix!!!!

 

...and so on and so forth.

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

Trouble is, a small part of him realises you're going to go through with the divorce and so he's trying to cater to BOTH potential outcomes (begging him back/divorcing him). And that's WHY you've got mixed messages in the form of the beseeching act not to divorce him (beseechment Machievelli-style in the form of an unsignable/unuseable petition that will have you begging him back) but full of vindictive punishments (the ridiculous lies, fact-twistings and gross over-exaggerations that paint you to be a monster mother and wife) ...just in case that's the avenue he's forced by you to continue taking.

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

I mean, come, now... think about it, Sarah...

 

Let's say I were your husband and I still had high regard and consideration for you but wasn't in love with you any more and wanted out, truly WANTED out, I'd do this, wouldn't I...

 

1. Sit you down and explain sorrowfully and ashamedly and tactfully how sorry I was but ..there you have it. We need to divorce.

 

2. I would swiftly move out. But not until after having sat down with you to discuss and agree concretedly the ins and outs of how it would all work, mechanically, including and especially where there was as little angst and disruption to our kids as possible, on both the practical and emotional level.

 

3. From then on, I'd make the whole process as easy for you, as 'pleasant' for you as possible, and myself, and as speedily efficient as possible:

 

- Cooperate wherever possible to protect both our salaries.

- Keep up regular, reliable contact with the kids both in person and by phone, but not so as to give them any false hope of reunification.

- Raise the petition and quote Irreconcilable Differences... no petty and vindictive spiel attached whatsoever.

- Discuss and agree with you a fair and realistic Interim Maintenance amount. (In fact, I'd probably be a bit too generous due to feeling bad over what I was doing.)

- Settle up any outstanding debts I owed you.

- Help you find your own solicitor.

- Phone you to see if you were feeling and coping okay.

Etc., etc., etc.

 

I would NOT strategically place great big rocks and boulders on your path and on my own as would have us both, and our kids, tripping up every step of the way as required time to sit and nurse the injuries before hobbling on with equal or worse difficulty from there as would render the.......... journey.......... veeeeeeee.....................ryyyyyyyyyy........................................

..............................................s..................lo............................................w, ....nor as could have you feeling like it was probably better for your kids' present welfare and safety as well as future welfare and safety as well as your own welfare now and into the future, not to continue with that route.

 

Divorces are genuine when they're amicable. They are not amicable if one of the parties doesn't want it and tries to impede it. Were it up to YOU, this whole process would have been smooth as silk and friendly and cooperative as two bessie mates who've simply decided they don't want to rent a house together any more. Right?

 

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

As always you are right. I just thought those comments earlier in the thread about him wanting to reconcile were not valid once we worked out the affair/ potential affair.

 

So he secretly wants to reconcile but with me as a quiet mouse of a woman so scared in case he leaves again? I think that may be the case. He did it on a much smaller scale during the marriage by walking out of door and disappearing for hours at a time, to the point where I became so scared to raise any issues in case he walked out. I think the real trigger which made him "snap" and leave was the incident at his sister's house.

 

I will try to keep it short. (Famous last words)

 

We went to his sisters for Boxing Day (Chris, the kids and I and his mother)

The days leading up to it had been a farce in itself with his mother crying for hours about his sister and none of the food being delivered. His sister's phone had broken so no one could contact her and she was also having major relationship issues. When we arrived the flat was awful, a complete tip - chaos. The spare room which the kids were supposed to be playing in was chock a block full of junk and not usable. It was awful. His sister kept bursting into tears saying her partner had left her alone for hours with the kids on Christmas Day. Also that he had not bought her anything for Christmas. He was in the other room pacing around and ignored us all. I did not feel comfortable with my kids being in such an atmosphere. We had travelled 200 odd miles though and his sister clearly needed some support. We arrived at 2pm and she not yet begun to make lunch. She had left the vegetables at her friends house. She had about 4 potatoes that looked in edible which she was chopping up all the while crying. Chris and his mum decided to go to the shops for provisions leaving me there with the kids. On their return his sister began making the food. She had no actual oven and was using like some weird kind of small camping stove. It was all just awful. I wished I could get the hell out of there with my kids. At around 4pm myself, Chris and his mother were talking in general and I mentioned that we still needed to work out the childcare arrangements for the first week in January. This is the conversation:

 

Me: I need to know your shifts for the first week in January so I can work out which days we need childcare and I can speak to my mum.

 

C: I won't know until I go back to work on 2nd January.

 

Me: so you don't know your shift that week?

 

C: no I already told you that.

 

Me: so how are you going to know what time to go in on 2nd?

 

C: I am just going to go in at 8am and find out when I get there.

 

Me: (slightly alarmed) but who will take the kids to breakfast club and what if your shift is 8am all that week? I need to know so I can sort things out.

 

(Note his mum was due to be on holiday that week so the only childcare was my mother who at 73 finds the early mornings especially hard so I was a wee bit anxious to sort it out)

 

C: (cross) well I don't know so I don't know what you want from me?

 

Me: could you maybe call work before you are due back because then they will be able to tell you?

 

C: (snappy) no I'm not doing that.

 

Me: please don't snap at my I am just asking.

 

C: you think that's snapping? This is snapping - MASSIVE ROAR

 

(seriously even his mum flinched)

 

I was so embarrassed I felt tears in my eyes but did not want a scene so I stated at the tv and said nothing. After about 2 minutes...

 

C: I am sorry I shouted but you pushed me to it.

 

Me: thank you for the apology but it does not really mean anything because you added a but ... And I did not push you to it.

 

C: yes you did!

 

Me: I was just asking a simple question.

 

C: no I have you my answer and you pushed and pushed and pushed.

 

Me: Chris I didn't - look lets not do this.

 

His mum: you did push him.

 

His sister : mum stay out of it!

 

His mum: well she pushed and pushed him

 

His sister: just stay out of it - don't get involved.

 

Me (standing up) I can't stay here listening to this. I went to his nephews bedroom. I didn't know what to do. I wanted to leave but I was 200 miles away from home and Chris is the driver. I always before have swallowed things like that and this was the first time I have ever left a room without things being smoothed over. Chris on the other hand always did (stormed out nearly every time there was an altercation) part of me thought I would show him how it felt.

 

I stayed in that room for 1 hour and a half before he came to it. He asked me if I was coming back to the living room as dinner was ready. I said ok in a minute.

 

I went back and he tried to huge but his mum was staring at me with daggers. I felt awkward and I still felt bad towards Chris. I sat there for a short while with her staring at me and I couldn't do it. So I stood up and left the room again quietly. I heard then talking about me but couldn't make out what they were saying but I clearly heard his mum say "no compromise!"

 

After a short while his sister came in and asked me if I was ok. I said yeah I'm ok - thanks for saying that earlier.

 

Sister: well mum needs to learn not to get involved in other people's arguments.

 

I rejoined the group and Chris hugged me and I let him.

 

That was that really

 

 

The reason I think this was his trigger was that it was the first time I had dealt with an argument the way he always does. Walking away 'punishing' the other person with silence, refusing to resolve. I gave him a small taste of his own medicine and it was too much for him to handle.

[Nattersmatter]

Spoke to citizens advice and don't think his statement is adequate grounds for divorce. Got a solicitors appointment tomorrow. Same one I saw before. Also mediation tomorrow night - God knows how THAT will go considering I will struggle to even be in the same room as him.

 

No, his statement *isn't* adequate grounds. Not for him, anyway. For you, on the other hand? THEY'RE BRILLIANT! You couldn't ASK for better present- and past-day proof as to his (grossly) Unreasonable Behaviour!!

 

Same goes for mediation. Show it to her.

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

As always you are right. I just thought those comments earlier in the thread about him wanting to reconcile were not valid once we worked out the affair/ potential affair.

 

Oh, no, no, no, they just got tweaked a little (Red).

 

So he secretly wants to reconcile but with me as a quiet mouse of a woman so scared in case he leaves again? I think that may be the case.

 

Yup.

 

He did it on a much smaller scale during the marriage by walking out of door and disappearing for hours at a time, to the point where I became so scared to raise any issues in case he walked out.

 

Yup.

 

I think the real trigger which made him "snap" and leave was the incident at his sister's house.

 

I will try to keep it short. (Famous last words)

 

We went to his sisters for Boxing Day (Chris, the kids and I and his mother)

The days leading up to it had been a farce in itself with his mother crying for hours about his sister and none of the food being delivered. His sister's phone had broken so no one could contact her and she was also having major relationship issues. When we arrived the flat was awful, a complete tip - chaos. The spare room which the kids were supposed to be playing in was chock a block full of junk and not usable. It was awful. His sister kept bursting into tears saying her partner had left her alone for hours with the kids on Christmas Day. Also that he had not bought her anything for Christmas. He was in the other room pacing around and ignored us all. I did not feel comfortable with my kids being in such an atmosphere. We had travelled 200 odd miles though and his sister clearly needed some support. We arrived at 2pm and she not yet begun to make lunch. She had left the vegetables at her friends house. She had about 4 potatoes that looked in edible which she was chopping up all the while crying. Chris and his mum decided to go to the shops for provisions leaving me there with the kids. On their return his sister began making the food. She had no actual oven and was using like some weird kind of small camping stove. It was all just awful. I wished I could get the hell out of there with my kids. At around 4pm myself, Chris and his mother were talking in general and I mentioned that we still needed to work out the childcare arrangements for the first week in January. This is the conversation:

 

Me: I need to know your shifts for the first week in January so I can work out which days we need childcare and I can speak to my mum.

 

C: I won't know until I go back to work on 2nd January.

 

Me: so you don't know your shift that week?

 

C: no I already told you that.

 

Me: so how are you going to know what time to go in on 2nd?

 

C: I am just going to go in at 8am and find out when I get there.

 

Me: (slightly alarmed) but who will take the kids to breakfast club and what if your shift is 8am all that week? I need to know so I can sort things out.

 

(Note his mum was due to be on holiday that week so the only childcare was my mother who at 73 finds the early mornings especially hard so I was a wee bit anxious to sort it out)

 

C: (cross) well I don't know so I don't know what you want from me?

 

Me: could you maybe call work before you are due back because then they will be able to tell you?

 

C: (snappy) no I'm not doing that.

 

Me: please don't snap at my I am just asking.

 

C: you think that's snapping? This is snapping - MASSIVE ROAR

 

(seriously even his mum flinched)

 

I was so embarrassed I felt tears in my eyes but did not want a scene so I stated at the tv and said nothing. After about 2 minutes...

 

C: I am sorry I shouted but you pushed me to it.

 

Me: thank you for the apology but it does not really mean anything because you added a but ... And I did not push you to it.

 

C: yes you did!

 

Me: I was just asking a simple question.

 

C: no I have you my answer and you pushed and pushed and pushed.

 

Me: Chris I didn't - look lets not do this.

 

His mum: you did push him.

 

His sister : mum stay out of it!

 

His mum: well she pushed and pushed him

 

His sister: just stay out of it - don't get involved.

 

Me (standing up) I can't stay here listening to this. I went to his nephews bedroom. I didn't know what to do. I wanted to leave but I was 200 miles away from home and Chris is the driver. I always before have swallowed things like that and this was the first time I have ever left a room without things being smoothed over. Chris on the other hand always did (stormed out nearly every time there was an altercation) part of me thought I would show him how it felt.

 

I stayed in that room for 1 hour and a half before he came to it. He asked me if I was coming back to the living room as dinner was ready. I said ok in a minute.

 

I went back and he tried to huge but his mum was staring at me with daggers. I felt awkward and I still felt bad towards Chris. I sat there for a short while with her staring at me and I couldn't do it. So I stood up and left the room again quietly. I heard then talking about me but couldn't make out what they were saying but I clearly heard his mum say "no compromise!"

 

After a short while his sister came in and asked me if I was ok. I said yeah I'm ok - thanks for saying that earlier.

 

Sister: well mum needs to learn not to get involved in other people's arguments.

 

I rejoined the group and Chris hugged me and I let him.

 

That was that really

 

 

The reason I think this was his trigger was that it was the first time I had dealt with an argument the way he always does. Walking away 'punishing' the other person with silence, refusing to resolve. I gave him a small taste of his own medicine and it was too much for him to handle.

 

Gosh, Slave, who do you think you ARE, asking for information by which to protect the welfare of your child slaves?

 

They were all high on negative melodrama, weren't they. Still.. Doesn't alter the fact of the above attitude, does it, you jumped-up piece of chattel, you. Don't you know the most you're supposed to do is moan inaudibly and softly rattle the chains to your metal shackles?

 

I know why you chose that moment. You thought that because sister-in-law was more like you, meaning, her husband had to be the master type, and they were showing allegiance to her, that reasoned-out (hah!) attitude automatically extended to you, meaning you had a 'safe place' in which to assert yourself over getting yours and the kids' needs finally sorted out. Cos it's logical, right?

 

Wrongggg. MIL is severely emotionally unintelligent and mentally crooked to the point of ill. For her it's not ABOUT logical and morals-based rules and thinking. It's just about Them (anyone not blood) and Us (blood), rules given whatever need at the time nicely bent or reversed to suit. AND, of course, you stole her baby... her wickle soldier who could do no wrong ...unless it was wrong against *her*, of course...because, of course, Us Against Them can just as quickly change to Me Against Them... whereupon the rules change all over again to suit only her.

 

See SIL's own shortfall in healthy attitude, though: "Mum needs to learn not to get involved in other people's arguments". NO! It's this: There shouldn't HAVE to have been any argument in the first place, that was NOT argument-worthy, it was not any excuse and license for Chris to treat you like that and speak to you that way. And nor should his attitude have been that any needs of your kids were solely your problem and not his, and not one he gave two hoots about.

 

Ah, but, he knew better than you when it came to those ever-shifting/twisting/disappearing rules and allegiances, didn't he... so he was on HIS territory, they were HIS troops, not yours.

 

*Outnumbered*. (Well, you had a HALF a troop on your side, I suppose.)

 

I've met your mother-in-law before, Sarah. Oh, yes. I know that'll come as a huge shock to you but... I've only just realised I know her intimately. Met her for the first time aged about 6, I think? I even have video footage of her, in fact. Want to see it? Here:

 

 

 

 

(Hee-hee, sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

Oh, and...

 

The reason I think this was his trigger was that it was the first time I had dealt with an argument the way he always does. Walking away 'punishing' the other person with silence, refusing to resolve. I gave him a small taste of his own medicine and it was too much for him to handle.

 

Yup. Ohhhhhhhh, yup. *He* master. Not you. You slave.

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

YouTube rarely works on my phone but I will watch those when I get the chance.

 

Feel much better this evening.

 

I called the school and spoke with the headmistress (she's new). I said I just wanted to make her fully aware of the situation as it stands. I spoke to her about the social services thing and asked her to pass on my thanks to my children's teacher for backing me up and supporting me. I said it was very reassuring and I appreciated their support at this time. I said that due to the erratic and unpredictable behaviour of Chris I wanted to reiterate that he and his mother would not be collecting the children at this time and should he attempt to I would need to be contacted. She assuredly that they would keep me fully informed of anything that happens. She was very understanding and said that if the school can do anything extra to help and support the childreb i should let her know. This is the first time I have ever spoken to her and I said:

 

"I haven't spoken to you before and I am sorry it has to be in these circumstances"

 

She replied: "we are here to support the children and you in any way we can. If you see me in the playground come over and introduce yourself"

 

It was good - I felt better for having made the call.

 

Jonathan called me tonight. He had no idea Chris was going to file for divorce. He says he has not been in touch with him for 3 weeks and that he called Chris last night. He said he was only on the phone for about 2 minutes and that Chris was very cold towards him. I told him about the social services thing and he was horrified. I ran through Chris' reasons for the divorce and he said "he's seriously lost the plot he's bonkers"

 

He said:

 

"What I can't understand is how he can be this way after your family basically took him in off the streets. When his mum threw him out and he had nowhere to go your family took him in. I don't know how he can just forget that"

 

I said : "my parents saw him as a son. They treated him like a son"

 

Jonathan: "yes I remember going to your parents house when you both lived there. Your mum did all his washing, ironing and cooking"

 

Me: "yep and he always called her mum"

 

Jonathan: "he just isn't the person I thought he was. Can I tell you something just between you and I ?"

 

Me: "of course"

 

Jon: "I am strongly considering telling him I don't want him as my best man"

 

Me: "I don't think I should give me opinion on that as it is biased"

 

Jon: "I spoke to a couple of friends about it and they said the way he has treated you is terrible. My dad did that to my mum and me when I was 2 and I know how hard it was for my mum. I never thought Chris would ever do this. I thought he had moral values. I don't think he has what I want in a best man"

 

Me: well if I give my opinion then I don't want you to be swayed by it at all ok?

 

Jon: ok

 

Me: from a purely selfish point of view it would be easier for me if he isn't your best man. It will be hard for me having to watch him give a speech and be there at the front all day. Saying that, I'm not going to the wedding for him, I'm going for you and Sarah and if you do keep him as best man that's absolutely fine with me - I can deal with it.

 

Jon: no, I know - I did think about the impact it might have on you as well. I just don't think he has moral values at all. I'm so shocked, I feel a bit gutted to be honest - I saw him as my best friend as well as you. I feel like he's not who I thought he was.

 

Then for some reason I burst into tears.

 

Jonathan: sorry Sarah

 

Me: no I'm sorry, I don't know why that of all things has made me cry! I don't know I guess even now after all he has done I still don't like the thought of him being unhappy. Sorry I will be ok in a minute.

 

Jonathan: no don't worry, cry as much as you need to - I will always be here for you. That's what friends are for.

 

Me: thank you.

 

Jonathan: Sarah and I might pop by on Sunday morning if you like?

 

Me: sure that would be cool. What does Sarah think about Chris being best man?

 

Jonathan: she thinks I should ask James instead. I know you don't like James but at the moment I think he is a better candidate than Chris

 

Me: ha so do I!!! Nah I have no issue with James anymore - that was years ago.

 

(Basically Years ago when Chris and I first married a group of us were out. Chris And James were on the dance floor and some girl have Chris the eye. James indicated this to Chris and Chris pointed to his wedding ring. James responded by gesturing that Chris should remove the ring - Chris told me and ever since then I haven't been very keen on James)

 

Jonathan: yes James was really stupid back then but he is ok now.

 

I invited Jonathan and Sarah round for dinner one night and Jonathan said yes and that was it really.

 

Am going to get some sleep now after catching up on a few other threads. Got a big day tomorrow

[Nattersmatter]

Jon: no, I know - I did think about the impact it might have on you as well. I just don't think he has moral values at all. I'm so shocked, I feel a bit gutted to be honest [typical male emotions-understatement alert!]- I saw him as my best friend as well as you. I feel like he's not who I thought he was.

 

Then for some reason I burst into tears.

 

It's called total vindication and relief, Sarah. It's all very well for me to have sat here and told you all along even from the start that I basically could see what a personality disorder-ed he was underneath (now upgraded 'diagnostically' from Narcissistic PD co-morbid with Passive-Aggressive to include mild Sociopathy), even just from that iceberg tip, but, unlike Jonathan, I haven't actually known Chris personally or ever been taken in by him. Jonathan has. And it understandably took longer for Jonathan to cotton on than it did you, which would have had you always questioning yourself and your newly altered belief from the new evidence considering that Jonathan you could and did trust. But it also made Jon a co-victim... which is very, very comforting (in a perversely positive way). I mean, listen to what Jon said: basically every incredulous sentiment you've uttered on this thread.

 

Anyway, assuming Jon makes good his statement of intent on the 'best man' score, which I'm sure he will, I'm very glad that it's brought the two of you, or three of you if you remember he comes as a twosome, closer together.

 

You really do find out who your REAL friends are when the sh*t hits the fan. The more traumas you've been through and the more times you see those friends stay staunchly by your side, and vice versa, the more and more you value each other until in some cases they become even more valuable to you as brothers and sisters than the siblings you got given devoid of any say in the matter. Methinks Jonathan and his wife will be your best friends for life, now.

 

Additionally, now that you've been given that 'stamp of authenticity', you're free to feel sorry for Chris the little boy who, thanks to his mother and father, their parents, their parents, etc., never stood a chance. Not that you can ever allow that sense of sorry-ness to influence your dealings with him. Because what is most pitiful is that neither can he appreciate your empathy. It's another sacrosanct, you see... one of the very values he's not been programmed to comprehend and value, meaning, he would just use THAT, too, as another machinations tool against you. "Never love something that can't ever love you back", is the psych saying about PDs. Zero empathy.

 

Chris has chosen his 'step' on the staircase, now. (See what happens when he's no longer on the end of your 'toddler reins'?) That step is a separate world and reality level with its own populus. Until (and whether) he invests the major effort needed to pull himself OFF that vast stair step, he is consigned to rubbing shoulders within every life segment with people who are likewise as amoral and all-round sh*tty as him, possibly many of them markedly worse than him (just having missed the step below where they could in fact quite comfortably reside), meaning he's going to be receiving the same and worse shoddy treatment from them as he himself's been dishing out to everyone (you and Jonathan, etc.) on that higher step. Yep, from now on, he'll be getting tastes of his own medicine, left, right and centre. And that's another way where (the earthly version of) "What goes around... comes around". It's how it works.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't believe the BS that Chris told you or Jonathan et al about what James said/gesticulated, either. I'm quite sure it was Chris who did the saying/gesticulating to James, as in, 'Shall I?' (remember his prior Shall I? to your brother and nuff said/case closed, okay?). Either that or James was being deliberately tongue-in-cheek as a way to make a moral point by comedy contrast. More probably the former case, IMO. Please trust me on this. "The liar said he wasn't a liar but everyone else was". (Poor James... made whipping boy.)

 

By the same token, remember the following, now that you do have him that much more firmly and deeply pegged as a Machievelli (because, it's not just actions that expose them, even words aren't ever sacrosanct... ever): it's not just what they say... it's when they say it... why they say it (what their reasons could possibly be for saying it)... how they say it...what they don't say... what they should have said but didn't... what else they could have said instead (and more easily) but didn't... what they have to lose or gain by saying it (there will always be a gain or loss-avoidance in every word they utter)... whether they mean it (watch the feet to see if they whisper 'truth!' or 'lie!' or 'bit of both!').... and lastly but not leastly, what possible, tiny slight you might unwittingly or unavoidably forced-ly have committed at any time during the run-up, whether it been minutes, days, hours, weeks, months or (as you've just seen on that petition) years ago.

 

 

DAMN right this is making you stronger. If you'd care to re-read this thread in the next day or so I think you'll see and hear the difference for yourself. And it ain't even finished yet (although it might end prematurely seeing as how quickly Chris's inner wisdom is forcing him (on the order from 'on high') to self-destruct for the good of mankind).

 

It was never how it felt - Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. At least not in the order YOU thought (good guy turns bad). It was the other way around (bad guy pretends to be good for as long as it suits him and/or until he falls to the floor knackered from all the gargantuan effort, whichever happens soonest).

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

Ok Nat I concede it is now time to sing the I told you so song!!!

 

I had my 'leaving the solicitor clicking my heels moment'

 

She was amazing. I went back to the one I saw before - Georgia. She said I can agree to the divorce without agreeing to his statement. She wrote on the form that I will not be defending the divorce but that I do not agree to the particulars of the statement and I reserve the right to defend those particulars if need be. Also that he is unable to use those particulars in any other proceedings.

 

She said his statement is vindictive and inflammatory. Also that you can tell he has no solicitor.

 

The whole divorce is going to cost me £120. She says he has saved me a fortune by filing for it himself.

 

She read the statement and said it was making her eyes spin. She said it was ridiculous and "the most convoluted rubbish I have ever read". She laughed at some if it and apologised for laughing.

 

She said a judge now has to decide if it is grounds for divorce and she said that's where it could fall down. She said the judge will most likely grant the divorce to "set you free of this git"

 

I told her about the social services thing and Lauren feeling insecure if I left the room. She said that if he is affecting the children in that way and I feel the need to the I could stop unsupervised contact. She said she wasn't suggesting that I do that but it was something to bear in mind.

 

So that's it for now. She is handling it all from here on in. I'm so happy.

 

She said "in a few weeks you will be free"

 

Wow - seriously - I am so happy!!!

 

Roll on mediation!

[Nattersmatter]

It's not a very inspiring song, I'm afraid; it's based on Bad Manner's "Special Brew":

 

"I-told yooou, yes-it's truuue, and-you knooow that-I-told-a ya-too.... (diddle-eh-deh!.. diddle-eh-deh-der-de-der-deh!)... [repeat x 100 or until fist goes smack in face]...."

 

 

Signed Under Protest and Without Prejudice, eh? Good!

 

120 squid? BER-LIMEY that's cheap?! Whoo-hooh!

 

I'm not surprised she laughed. How the hell do you NOT?! The judge will have a FIELD day with it! It'll get passed around for its gaffaw value, as well, plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised, will end up on some internet funny some day under the heading, 'Most stupid ex-husband-to-bes' or 'Most childish divorce petitions'! I've never seen anything like it, either, I seriously haven't.

 

So are you going to think about supervised contact?

 

Wow - seriously - I am so happy!!!

 

Roll on mediation!

 

 

 

You didn't even KNOW how desperately, chronically, drip-drip unhappy you were all those years, did you. (Bloody do now. ;-))

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

Supervised contact will be if I really have to. Will see how it goes. She said to talk about the whole social services thing and how he has made Lauren insecure during mediation.

 

She said he needs to understand that his role now is to support me where raising the kids is concerned not try to fight me over it

 

Should be interesting!

[Supersarahp]

So mediation wow.

 

He is such a pain in the @ss he just can't see anybody's point of view bar his own. He insisted he had no flexibility at work. He said they told him he would have to step down from his position if he wanted flexibility. The couple said didn't he think that was very unfair of a company who have a flexible working policy in place? They told him maybe he should be a bit more assertive at work. He said he had tried. I took out the work's flexible working policy and quoted this:

 

"You will not be treated any less favourably when you are on a flexible working arrangement and you will have the same access to training, career opportunities and other work related initiatives as employees working standard hours"

 

He started crying and saying I was so dominant and that he really missed his kids and he couldn't bear to go more than a week without seeing them and how much he loved them.

 

I said "you don't even ring them in between the times you have them"

 

He said it was because I was so hostile he didn't feel able to. I said "any time you have called have I ever blocked you from speaking to them? Have I ever been hostile to you on the phone? I say hi Chris how are you? And then I give the phone to the kids"

 

He kept harping back to wanting every Sunday - I could tell even the mediators were getting frustrated with him. Eventually we worked out a plan for the next 3 months. It is basically that he has them more or less every second weekend and the weeks he doesn't have them he will have them one day after school (which he will let me know 4 weeks in advance) he is also having them a few days in the may half term and the may bank holiday weekend.

 

I said he can have them this weekend sat night through to Monday - his mother will be having them on Monday and I said that was ok as long as I don't have to see her.

 

I refused to let him have responsibility for dropping them to school on Mondays as it relies on his mum. I said "your relationship with your mum is very volatile and she goes weeks and months refusing to speak to you"

 

He said "I have a very good relationship with my mum"

 

The man asked how the kids were coping. I explained that they are doing well and I am pleased but that Lauren is a bit insecure and the boys seem ok. I explained that Joe bottles things up but I encourage them to talk. That they have asked me if I am going to get married again.

 

He asked Chris how he thought the children were doing and Chris replied " oh they love being with me we have loads of cuddles and love - they love it they always say they really miss me"

 

Chris said he has his own place and wants to start having the kids there sometimes. I said well I will need the address as when I asked you told me it was none of my business. He gave me the address. I said "so what is it then, a bedsit?"

 

He said "no! It's not a bedsit. It's a studio flat"

 

(sorry it makes me laugh every time I say it)

 

I said "oh it's a bedsit then, do you really think that's a suitable place to have your 3 children for any length of time?"

 

He said: "it's all I can afford"

 

The woman said "well maybe see how it goes and if you need to you may need to think of getting a bigger place"

 

The man asked Chris if he was going to start phoning the children. Chris said "when I can. I mean sometimes I work late so I'm not sure"

 

I said "well it's not set in stone when you have to ring. You can all any time to speak to them and if we miss your call we will ring you back"

 

I said to him about ringing social services. I said it was a malicious act and everyone knows it was including social services and the school. He said "I had concerns" I said "well next time you have concerns you come to me you do not ring social services again. That will not happen again"

 

At the end we had to pay and we had been 1 hour and a half instead of an hour. It was £50 each per hour. I had brought £100 just in case. Chris said "oh I only brought £50" and we all sat there. Eventually I said "look I have £100 I will pay the extra if you give me £25 tomorrow ok?"

 

He said ok. I said "make sure you give it to me though"

 

He said "you know I will " I said "I don't know anything"

 

I said "my sister is picking me up and she has the kids with her. If you want to say hello to them you can"

 

The woman encouraged him to do so but I could tell he was awkward. As we left I said "come over and say hello . Don't worry about Angela she isn't going to say anything to you"

 

So he came over and gave them a hug and said hi. They were pleased to see him. I said "daddy's going to have you tomorrow night and Sunday night ok?" And they said yes.

 

As he walked away I said "I'll see you tomorrow - dont forget my money"

 

He said "I won't. Thank you Sarah"

 

That was it. The whole meeting he was squirming in his seat when he spoke it was all "well um , a, um"

 

I felt totally in control and in the right. I could see that the couple particularly the man were unimpressed with him. The man actually looked disgusted with him.

 

I just pitied him to be honest. It was pitiful. Truly that's the word that springs to mind - pitiful and pathetic. I felt sorry for him and hated myself for even feeling that. I'm not angry with him anymore - I don't hate him. I just pity him. You stupid stupid man putting stubbornness and inflexibility before the things that really matter.

 

He kept stealing glances at me and at one point he was just staring at me. Eventually I said "why do you keep staring at me?"

I actually think he is terrified of me because he knows I tie him up in knots.

 

Example: he was trying to argue against the every other weekend with a weekday on the weeks he doesn't have them.

 

C: "ok ok so hypothetically say I happened to get 3 Saturdays off in a row what happens then?"

 

S: "well you have them the 1st weekend, I have them the 2nd weekend and you have them the 3rd weekend. Simple that's no problem at all"

 

 

Well we have sorted out the next 3 months anyway and we said we would try to sort the next few months by ourselves but if we can't then we will go back to them.

 

All in all I think it went well. I got what I wanted although not as cast iron as I would have liked. We shall see how it goes. He better bring me my money tomorrow - my sister said she would have said she as just paying her £75 and he would have to owe his extra. She said "you won't get that back" I said "well if I don't get it back he isn't having the kids"

She said "£8.33 per child" I said "yeah and if he only has a tenner on him he can take Liam cos he's the squeaky one!"

 

 

I am starting to think you and the clairvoyant are right. I think at some point he will come crawling back. I think he is a little boy stuck in a man's body being guided by his poisonous mother, having to make decisions that he is simply not equipped for.

[Supersarahp]

Oh I forgot to say before - I love this! Gotta be the best post of the entire thread. I showed my sister and she thought it was hilarious. She said "wow she is really good, it makes you see it from the other perspective really clearly - it's so true"

[Nattersmatter]

So mediation wow.

 

He is such a pain in the @ss he just can't see anybody's point of view bar his own. He insisted he had no flexibility at work. He said they told him he would have to step down from his position if he wanted flexibility. The couple said didn't he think that was very unfair of a company who have a flexible working policy in place? They told him maybe he should be a bit more assertive at work. He said he had tried. I took out the work's flexible working policy and quoted this

 

[As waves of surprise and anticipation rippled through the court room, LOL]

 

"You will not be treated any less favourably when you are on a flexible working arrangement and you will have the same access to training, career opportunities and other work related initiatives as employees working standard hours"

 

Fifteen-Love.

 

He started crying and saying I was so dominant and that he really missed his kids and he couldn't bear to go more than a week without seeing them and how much he loved them.

 

OH, MY GOD, HE EVEN TURNED ON THE EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL ACTING IN FRONT OF THE MEDIATORS!! (Oh, for goodness' sake, why am I acting so surprised, here, ffflth.)

 

I WOULD say, does he really think everybody but him is stupid?, but in his case, it's clearly he genuinely does, yes, *and* that he was completely desperate at being boxed into a corner like that, completely out of any other options. But to turn on the melodramatic blackmail in front of professional witnesses rather than just hold his hands up and say, 'Yep, you've got me, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly, officer' in the form of, 'Okay, I'll ask them again and (if they still say No) tell them two mediators thought it reasonable'? *That* is what defines him as officially mentally ill, Sarah. The sane, you see, would worry about looking insane to themselves and to other people. The mentally ill don't give a toss about that.

 

I have to point out, however, that considering he IS a Machievelli, that was woefully poor playing on his part. Very unintelligent. He could quite easily have pretended that his claim of his request was genuine and bought time for himself with that promise to re-lodge his appeal. So this - that little hammy performance being the best he could come up with - just goes to show you how out of 'puff' he is, now. (Tick! Won't be long now before he waves the White flag.... for a run of months, anyway.)

 

Anyway. Thirty-Love.

 

I said "you don't even ring them in between the times you have them"

 

He said it was because I was so hostile he didn't feel able to. I said "any time you have called have I ever blocked you from speaking to them? Have I ever been hostile to you on the phone? I say hi Chris how are you? And then I give the phone to the kids"

 

Forty-Love.

 

He kept harping back to wanting every Sunday - I could tell even the mediators were getting frustrated with him.

 

Game point! (New balls, please)

 

Eventually we worked out a plan for the next 3 months. It is basically that he has them more or less every second weekend and the weeks he doesn't have them he will have them one day after school (which he will let me know 4 weeks in advance) he is also having them a few days in the may half term and the may bank holiday weekend.

 

More or less (uh-huh)... Well, that's fine by you... the fact he's not even taking his full alternate weekends means he'll pay the fullest wife and child maintenance possible, probably fuller than that piddly £340, once it's made a court order.

 

Fifteen-Love.

 

I said he can have them this weekend sat night through to Monday - his mother will be having them on Monday and I said that was ok as long as I don't have to see her.

 

I refused to let him have responsibility for dropping them to school on Mondays as it relies on his mum. I said "your relationship with your mum is very volatile and she goes weeks and months refusing to speak to you"

 

He said "I have a very good relationship with my mum"

 

What?! [snort/gaffaw]

 

The man asked how the kids were coping. I explained that they are doing well and I am pleased but that Lauren is a bit insecure and the boys seem ok. I explained that Joe bottles things up but I encourage them to talk. That they have asked me if I am going to get married again.

 

He asked Chris how he thought the children were doing and Chris replied " oh they love being with me we have loads of cuddles and love - they love it they always say they really miss me"

 

Shouldn't you have mentioned at this point how many times they've tried to resist or wriggle out of going with him?

 

Fifteen-All.

 

Chris said he has his own place and wants to start having the kids there sometimes. I said well I will need the address as when I asked you told me it was none of my business. He gave me the address.

 

Thirty-Fifteen.

 

I said "so what is it then, a bedsit?"

 

He said "no! It's not a bedsit. It's a studio flat"

 

(sorry it makes me laugh every time I say it)

 

Sorry, it makes *me* laugh every time I read that! (It is NOT a cardboard box, it is a bijou, eco-friendly mobile pied-a-terre-style home, LOL)

 

I said "oh it's a bedsit then, do you really think that's a suitable place to have your 3 children for any length of time?"

 

Forty-Fifteen.

 

He said: "it's all I can afford"

 

Liar.

 

The woman said "well maybe see how it goes and if you need to you may need to think of getting a bigger place"

 

She didn't believe him, either, look.

 

The man asked Chris if he was going to start phoning the children. Chris said "when I can. I mean sometimes I work late so I'm not sure"

 

I said "well it's not set in stone when you have to ring. You can all any time to speak to them and if we miss your call we will ring you back"

 

No, Sarah. Do not promise this. Think about it: you've just given him carte blanche to ring at 10pm, only to be told they're asleep already, but where he can confidently claim he at least is doing his bit in attempting to speak to them every night. Also - PHONE BILL! He will always call and let your a/phone register it without leaving a message (cost to him 0.75p) OR leave a very quick message (cost to him 1.00), meaning week-in-week-out YOU will be footing his - *his* - nightly call cost of anything up to ...well, who knows how long each of your three kids wants in turn to chat with him?

 

Forty-Thirty.

 

Never mind. You can always address this later on.

 

I said to him about ringing social services. I said it was a malicious act and everyone knows it was including social services and the school. He said "I had concerns" I said "well next time you have concerns you come to me you do not ring social services again. That will not happen again"

 

Game to Sarah! Score, two games to Nil.

 

At the end we had to pay and we had been 1 hour and a half instead of an hour. It was £50 each per hour. I had brought £100 just in case. Chris said "oh I only brought £50" and we all sat there. Eventually I said "look I have £100 I will pay the extra if you give me £25 tomorrow ok?"

 

He said ok. I said "make sure you give it to me though"

 

He said "you know I will " I said "I don't know anything"

 

He won't. Because you won. And you must be punished (avengingly pissed off via a blow to your high sense of justice... just like his claim of having insufficient enough money was, note).

 

Love-Thirty.

 

Also/more to the point: Why are you rescuing him, still? What business is it of YOURS if he's brought too little money. It was between him and the mediators, and THEY, in fact, should have told him to send them a £25 cheque the next day. Don't do that again, okay?

 

I said "my sister is picking me up and she has the kids with her. If you want to say hello to them you can"

 

LOL, 'If you want to be forced into an awkward albeit unspoken confrontation, you can (and will)'.

 

Fifteen-Thirty.

 

The woman encouraged him to do so

 

In unwitting revenge for the £25 (see how even normal people work, Sarah?... but it's about degrees)

 

but I could tell he was awkward.

 

Yeah, as could she. LOL

 

As we left I said "come over and say hello . Don't worry about Angela she isn't going to say anything to you"

 

So he came over and gave them a hug and said hi. They were pleased to see him. I said "daddy's going to have you tomorrow night and Sunday night ok?" And they said yes.

 

As he walked away I said "I'll see you tomorrow - dont forget my money"

 

He said "I won't. Thank you Sarah"

 

Hmm. He sounds like he's writing off the pending revenge, doesn't he. I wouldn't be too sure if I were you... methinks this is him setting you up to anticipate repayment that much more, ready for then NOT paying it back.

 

It's only £25 but it's the principle. If I were you I would forget about expecting him to pay it back. That way, if miracle of miracles he does, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

That was it. The whole meeting he was squirming in his seat when he spoke it was all "well um , a, um"

 

I felt totally in control and in the right. I could see that the couple particularly the man were unimpressed with him. The man actually looked disgusted with him.

 

I'm not surprised. The mediator is, after all, "a man" (and one who chose this career as his next-best-thing/nearest and only option to being a court judge). What justice-loving, mentally hard-working man *wouldn't* be disgusted with a lazy, slimy snake?

 

I just pitied him to be honest. It was pitiful. Truly that's the word that springs to mind - pitiful and pathetic. I felt sorry for him and hated myself for even feeling that. I'm not angry with him anymore - I don't hate him. I just pity him. You stupid stupid man putting stubbornness and inflexibility before the things that really matter.

 

Yes, but you did forget I told you never to let your pity AFFECT HOW YOU OPERATE. £25. Learn from that mistake and never repeat it again. Not talking about where the need to be rescued isn't GENUINE - because he is your kids' father after all. I'm talking where it's not, i.e. where he DOES have alternatives and solutions open to him (because he's not a kid). See how he used that sacredness of yours against you? Note it, chew it, swallow it, digest it and don't poo it out.

 

He kept stealing glances at me and at one point he was just staring at me. Eventually I said "why do you keep staring at me?"

I actually think he is terrified of me because he knows I tie him up in knots.

 

He's as headf***ed as you are. You weren't like this when you were married to him, were you. You'd let him off the hook and bail him out time after time after time. Sure, you went whinge, rail, whinge with your mouth.. but that was all... empty threats. You never took actual action when it came to Not 'Avin' It. This time you're DOING IT, FOLLOWING THROUGH.

 

Example: he was trying to argue against the every other weekend with a weekday on the weeks he doesn't have them.

 

C: "ok ok so hypothetically say I happened to get 3 Saturdays off in a row what happens then?"

 

S: "well you have them the 1st weekend, I have them the 2nd weekend and you have them the 3rd weekend. Simple that's no problem at all"

 

It is to priorities-skewed him, Sarah. He needs his weekends to go on dates, remember?

 

Well we have sorted out the next 3 months anyway and we said we would try to sort the next few months by ourselves but if we can't then we will go back to them.

 

Thirty-All.

 

All in all I think it went well. I got what I wanted although not as cast iron as I would have liked. We shall see how it goes. He better bring me my money tomorrow - my sister said she would have said she as just paying her £75 and he would have to owe his extra. She said "you won't get that back" I said "well if I don't get it back he isn't having the kids"

She said "£8.33 per child" I said "yeah and if he only has a tenner on him he can take Liam cos he's the squeaky one!"

 

Nope, sorry, Sarah, you can't do that - interfere with his custody rights in response to matters fiscal, court doesn't like parents mixing the two. Your sister's right, he won't pay it back. Accept it, learn from it, make it impossible in the first place next time.

 

I am starting to think you and the clairvoyant are right. I think at some point he will come crawling back. I think he is a little boy stuck in a man's body being guided by his poisonous mother, having to make decisions that he is simply not equipped for.

 

Yep. You finally putting your money where your mouth is, he's starting to fancy you again.

 

Sick bucket's that way --->

 

;-D

 

xoxo

 

 

PS: Nine out of ten. Which is still excellent given your still-early stage.

[Nattersmatter]

PPS: Glad you and your blister liked my petition re-write, but I ain't finished yet - still got the other three parts to go. Just didn't have time to do more than the one at that point. But I ain't giving *those* up, no way!, what - a comedy sl*t like me, give up pure golden material like that?! LOL

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

I know I can't keep the kids from him if he doesn't cough up the money - that was a joke !!!

 

I knew paying it for him was a bad idea even as I did it. I won't let him not pay me back though - I will nag nag nag until I get it - he knows I will too so I think he will pay it back. I got the £140 back eventually didn't I ?

 

I paid it cos I was so embarrassed by him that he didn't have it. I went back into default wife mode and did what I always used to do when he effed up. I know he is not my responsibility anymore but old habits die hard I guess. He was my first child after all.

 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the couple's house after the meeting.

 

Looking forward to your take on the other parts of his petition

 

Oh and with regards to the phoning. I did stipulate that it must be before bed time. He won't ring much I know that already. He wants to be a weekend dad to satisfy his guilt - that's it. I am the big bad wolf because I won't allow it.

 

Will let you know if he pays the £25 back. Shall we have a wager? If he does pay it back you have to start a thread saying "I think I'm in love with my horse" and if he doesn't pay it back then I will.

 

Deal?

[Nattersmatter]

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.

 

Knowing full well that the respondent was not coping and was at point of nervous exhaustion day-in-day-out from having had four full-time and two part-time jobs (as opposed to the petitioner's one full-time commercial and one part-time of house/garden maintenance) in the form of , the petitioner - henceforth referred to as petty-tioner - very considerately ensured night after night to maximise the respondent's time free of having to do the 7th job of wife and lover. This he did by getting home at the same tardy time as that of an unmarried and childless career man (despite not receiving the financial renumeration package to match).

 

The respondent would be asleep in a chair downstairs as the children ran amoke amid potentially broken glass shards covering every inch of the floor, potentially open bottles of whisky on every coffee table, potentially snakes in the washhandbasins, potentially electric eels swimming around in the toilet, and potentially a neon, flashing sign over the potentially wide open front door, reading, 'Paedophiles This Way'. (The petty-tioner wishes it to be noted that he has no concept of 'sleeping with one eye open' because it is a female/motherly phenomenon and the petitioner has zero clue about how women operate and doesn't give a sh*t anyway.)

 

The first few times he witnessed this scene, the petty-tioner decided it was NOT that his wife (and by extention, his kids) was direly in need of greater assistance from him but that, simply, she was merely acting in order to piss him off ergo did not seek to remedy the situation by coming home earlier from that point on. This also serves to explain why he at that time told no-one about this purportedly unacceptable-to-him situation.

 

The petty-tioner undid his cycling [hat] and ensured the children were safe and preceded feeding them and doing bed time routine. The petty-tioner then discover that the laptop had [gone] missing and panicked that an unknown party had accessed the house due to his concerns over the door policy.

 

The petty-tioner would like it noted that he wishes it be noted that he himself was far tireder than his wife from having, on top of his one-and-a-quarter jobs, had to cycle to and from work rather than use his car as, latter option, would have afforded him an earlier homecoming time, but as it was, just happened wholly unintentionally and coincidentally to maximise his family-and-responsibility-free time.

 

Knowing that his wife was merely pretending to suffer from nervous exhaustion, and on seeing that the laptop was not in its usual place, he took advantage of the opportunity to reprimand his wife for not being superwoman - by rousing her very violently and rudely from her pretend slumber with his sudden, very alarmist yelling. This he did courtesy of the beautiful excuse of the problem of the respondent - Prisoner Cell Block FMH - hereby referred to as Despondent - having zero control over the locking of the front door, a situation of his own creation, preservation and maximisation. The petty-tioner would also like the court to understand that had he not kept the respondent as vulnerable prisoner of the house, highly dependent on him, she would have left him at the first available opportunity (because she is a mad b*tch) and that had he not sought to scupper all chances of hers to steal back some vital sleep, she would have been STRONG enough to leave him (the mad b*tch).

 

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.

 

The petty-tioner would like the court to note that he was too stupid to think of this, believing in all sincerity that a burglary - despite no other household possessions were missing - had been the far more plausible and likely scenario... hence why he'd had no other choice but to shock his wife out of her slumber.

 

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.

 

The petty-tioner did not see why being married to an emotionally and financially abusive tw*t like him would, where he was concerned, render "the despondent", despondent, and that it was a deliberate attempt, yet again, to insult him and piss him off by not worshipping and fawning over him. The petty-tioner also refutes any attempted claim about the despondent over-enjoying a perfectly standard, slightly boring wedding reception because, due to having been deprived of any quality of lifestyle whatsoever for over 7 long years, it struck her as the most fun she could now think of. Ditto that she wished to let her hair down during a very rare occasion of there being other adults around to keep an eye on the entire group of guests' children.

 

This made the respondent drunk and on pretentious.

 

The despondent dared to behave accordingly. The petty-tioner, suspecting that any insightful and experienced persons in the vicinity might put 2 and 2 together about what her over-joie-de-vivre during that mundane function combined with total unwillingness to interact with her husband, might mean, and did not like it for the lack of one-way respect it demonstrated.

 

The petty-tioner would like the court to note if it has not long done already, that he is an immature, abusive little tw*t who has zero sense of consequences for and cupability and shame over his own systematic behaviour as indirectly illustrated via his wife's avoidant-of-him behaviour that day.

 

The respondent preferred other company than the petitioner and the petitioner focused the eveni g on looking after the children.

 

Because people, own wives included, are not stupid and do not tend to like to have to show cordiality and interest towards abusive pr*ts, the petty-tioner, rather than sit with no-one to talk to whatsoever, sought same from the children. They, however, weren't that interested either, and this insulted the petty-tioner greatly to the point where he never forgot it.

 

The respondent had been involved on making the seating plan and had positioned the petitioner away from her.

 

The petty-tioner would like the court to note that not only can he not add 2 and 2 together but, neither can he 1 plus 1...and nor, where concerns working out simple human reactionary responsiveness, 0 plus 0. The petty-tioner's sole and standard conclusive sum consists of 5.

 

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.

 

The petty-tioner felt that the despondent and the despondent's family should always take whatever he cared to dish out to them and their family member, the despondent, without ever voicing their abject displeasure with him (as goes against Machievellian Rule Number 5 in the Machievelli Book of Common Law), that nor should they tell themselves that the kids, including him, were fine, and that nor should they ever express their negative feelings about him behaviourally, especially not photographically (by portraying him as someone whose face is covered in hair... like a wolf).

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

I know I can't keep the kids from him if he doesn't cough up the money - that was a joke !!!

 

Oh. Okay!

 

I knew paying it for him was a bad idea even as I did it. I won't let him not pay me back though - I will nag nag nag until I get it - he knows I will too so I think he will pay it back. I got the £140 back eventually didn't I ?

 

Yeah, but, no, but... he *wants* you to nag and nag him. Machievellian Rule Number 2: "EVEN NEGATIVE ATTENTION (WHEREVER POSITIVE ISN'T AN OPTION), IS WELCOME".

 

I paid it cos I was so embarrassed by him that he didn't have it. I went back into default wife mode and did what I always used to do when he effed up. I know he is not my responsibility anymore but old habits die hard I guess. He was my first child after all.

 

ROFL! Hilarious excuse. But no excuse. Don't make excuses or you WILL repeat the error next time.

 

You see, Sarah - I do understand and feel sorry for you but (cough!) *don't* let that affect how I operate (my standards). Geddit? There are TWO puppies being trained here. One is being trained in how to train a puppy and the other, being puppy trained. Remember: kids, no matter which order of family position, behave as well or as badly as you *let them*.

 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the couple's house after the meeting.

 

ME, TOO!

 

"What a tw*t... What a creep."

"What a nasty git, you mean?"

"That too"

"Did you SEE?... the way he tried to emotionally blackmail us all and blah and blah and then said blah when she said blah and (and-and-and)?!"

"Yeah. Ugh."

"Yeah. UGH."

"Ugh. Brrr."

"Uggggghhhhhhhh-HEEEEUUUUGH!!"

"I'm soo glad I met you, I can't tell you!"

"Me, too, darling, me, too!"

[snog]

 

LOL, there you go.

 

Looking forward to your take on the other parts of his petition

 

Part two done already, look. What fun!

 

Oh and with regards to the phoning. I did stipulate that it must be before bed time. He won't ring much I know that already. He wants to be a weekend dad to satisfy his guilt - that's it. I am the big bad wolf because I won't allow it.

 

Correct.

 

Will let you know if he pays the £25 back. Shall we have a wager? If he does pay it back you have to start a thread saying "I think I'm in love with my horse" and if he doesn't pay it back then I will. Deal?

 

Or, even easier - and enforceable - loser pays £10?

 

(£50?)

 

xoxo

[Supersarahp]

Haha yeah £10 -

 

And yes I am taking it on board about no longer rescuing him.

 

Also his comments about my parent's golden anniversary are so much bull. I tried to involve him all night but he was so stand offish. I did not sit him away from me. We were on the same round table with our 3 children between us (cos contrary to his opinion I actually have some thought to my children being looked after)

 

He was invited to take part in plenty of photos but had already got the hump because he wasn't in the first couple which were my mum, dad and their six children only. There were approx 80 other guests including my my parent's 2 other son in laws and one daughter in law and none of them had an issue with it. I did have a few drinks and I is mingle - I had a lot of family there who I had not seen in years including my very dear auntie who died less than a month later.

 

Sigh I could go on to justify and explain each one of his grievances but I can't be @ssed quite frankly.

 

The whole coming home to find me asleep thing was a pile of rubbish also. I had a really bad cold - like really fluey. I had just started my new job and really didn't want to have to go off sick. He was due home at 6.30pm. I felt rough as hell all day. Got home at 6.10pm. My mum took one look at me and said "do you want me to hang on until Chris gets home so you can go straight to bed?" I said no and that he was due home shortly. I text him at 6.30pm asking if he had left work and explaining how ill I was feeling. The kids had already been fed by my mum. I waited and waited for him. At 7.25pm I said to the kids "lets get ready for bed. Mummy feels really ill tonight I might go to bed the same time as you guys" I took them all upstairs and lay on my bed for about a minute to get my strength to do the bed time routine and that's when he came home and had a go at me for "sleeping"

 

Not gonna go into all the other points he raised - I will be here all day!

[Nattersmatter]

You need your money right now. Here you go: If you're correct and he does give you the money back (albeit that is WITHOUT having to be nagged, okay?), I will send you a cheque for £50 (whatever address you like). If he doesn't - no charge to you.

 

(And that's how confident I am.

 

Saying that, he might. But if he does, you can bet your bottom (or another £50) that it'll *not* be due to his sense of right and obligation but because he wants something... which will then become clear soon after.

 

Re your parents' bash: It's called Isolation, Sarah. Standard abuser tactic (go Google). Here are some of the forms in which he used it on you:

 

1. Systematically treating you so badly as to keep your confidence in yourself at a low (despite that case was imperceptible to you by then) so that you wouldn't/couldn't pass your driving test and have any independence nor confidence enough to leave him.

2. Being difficult and generally not nice to be around/a wet weekend (prime example, that anniversary bash), in the hope that people would be put off wanting to invite him anywhere and, subsequently/inevitably, you by extension (because you came as a pair). He would the be your only friend and relative, meaning, you'd never leave him.

3. Depriving you of money so that you couldn't save any of it up, ergo if you ever felt like leaving him, you and the kids, you wouldn't have any money to flee with and would never leave him.

4. Behaving at all other times in such a childish way as triggered your motherly instinct towards him, despite you knew he was a grown man, whereby he became included in that instinct's preservation package's involuntary taboo called, 'Never, ever abandon your own children'.

5. Making it feel impossible to go anywhere during the daytime (because with the front door not locked, you couldn't ever feel confident enough to risk it).

Etc.

 

Abusers know they're treating you badly and want to be able to continue without fear of you ever leaving them in response. They COULD stop themselves from behaving so badly around and towards you but it's obviously easier not to ever have to do anything so closely resembling hard work in the first place. Plus Bullying is the abuser's version of scratching their itch.

 

Abusers need a victim - some skin to scratch. Someone with low confidence and self-esteem are ideal but behaviourally, at first, it's very hard for them to distinguish between that type and another type altogether: the Rescuer.

 

The Rescuer quickly ends up frustrating the hell out of them because, NOT being a true victim, just someone who over-tolerates and over-accommodates (as is necessary with babies and children), the Rescuer always resists, and effectively so, all attempts at belittlement and enslavement. This is because, HAVING such a strong motherly instinct, part of that instinct is to rise above it, NOT be affected by it on the personal level. But being as how the abuser has an ego problem which is obsessed with challenge in the form of locking horns, this ability to resist of yours just compels them to try harder or try varying their methods rather than results in them rejecting you in favour of an easier victim.

 

Despite Rescuers are moreover impervious, they're not COMPLETELY impervious - especially where it's a case over time of even the TINIEST of drips - drip fractions - having a chance to collect into that Tolerance bucket. Eventually, the imperviousness gets eroded. This erosion looks like this: It doesn't actually hurt, you kicking me, but what *does* hurt is why you'd want to in the first place?! Normally, you see, with kids, you know full well why they'd want to - simply because their egos are underdeveloped due only to lack of time having passed in which a child develops. But this protectiveness mechanism doesn't work properly when we know on the logical level that (Chris's case) the child is NOT a child. Hence the Toleration bucket eventually reaches its limit and WHOOSH! - overflows.... whereupon the child that is no such thing, instead of still getting protected, gets pulverised for his trouble.

 

...like you're lately and right now doing.

 

It's as enraging as having found out that the baby in the pram that you'd thought was yours and had been protecting from everything (including at times, yourself), and that you'd been nurturing and feeding (meaning, meanwhile, your real kids had been deprived by direct proportion), was in actual fact a lazy-arse, conning midget adult. That's the very realisation you've been making this whole time: Chris is not a young child. You're not even at the END of that realisation process yet.

 

 

Aside from the variation in meaningless details, you don't HAVE to be arsed to justify yourself or explain how it was. He does it all for you. It is far, far, far clearer and bleedin' obvious to me and to any other person around here THAN IT IS TO YOU.

 

xoxo

[Nattersmatter]

Meant to add (but had to baste the roast veggies): But, given more time and detachment, it'll be AS clear and bleedin' obvious to you as it is to us, probably even more so.

 

xoxo