Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Don't Understand abt the Court Stuff
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 302674" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>"The PubDef gave husband a very, very hard time about not supporting his son after he told her that . She 'yelled at him' for not standing up for difficult child. She said that husband was all difficult child had and husband had to be his son's advocate and that husband needed to support his son. husband did not ask if 'supporting' his son meant he was supposed to lie in court for him. (What happens is difficult child gets alone with people and plays poor little kicked puppy dog and so many people fall for it--and then most of the time, when they know all the details they change their minds; but seldom do people get to the point where they know the whole story--it's just so long and bizarre). "</p><p></p><p>This sounds a lot like husband inventing (or modifying) what was said, to justify his going all out to protect difficult child above absolutely everything. And to protecvt him in his own way, which includes NOT keeping him confined to barracks, not believing that difficult child could do anything wrong, etc. It sounds to me like husband is laying the groundwork for some later "mother tiger" behaviour from him, regarding difficult child.</p><p></p><p>The "untenable" thing - I think you hit the nail on the head. PLus it n=matches my theory - husband is picking and choosing words form all that he is told, and using it to create an entirely different fantasy that happens to fit exactly with what he wants to do all along, only he's 'blaming' all the experts. And doesn't want you in court because you might happen to hear what they REALLY think, and that would blow the lies wide open.</p><p></p><p>The doctor allegedly being two-faced - again, husband is trying to re-create his credibility with you, he's desperate to have you swallow the lies and beleive him. which I find fascinating - is this a technique difficult child uses, in HIS lies? ie to take partial truths, part of a story from one person, add his own wishes and then take parts of other words from other people, twist it all up to make an argument for what HE wants all along, then use the 'divide and conquer' tactics to undermine anyone you might otherwise believe over him?</p><p></p><p>Sounds familiar to me.</p><p></p><p>And another really worrying thing - husband constantly saying, "You're not supporting me. You're going to court and therefore you're not supporting me."</p><p></p><p>In what way is your presence in court a LACK of support for husband? Really? (from his publicly expressed point of view, I mean).</p><p></p><p>Your stated reasons DO make sense and DO NOT indicate a lack of trust in husband. </p><p></p><p>In what way does husband expect you to behave, if you are going to court in support of him? And as you pointed out in this last post - surely the issue is to support difficult child and make sure his needs are met, in the face of the outcome from difficult child's own actions?</p><p></p><p>It is difficult child who has done the wrong thing, difficult child who got caught with drugs on him. And if difficult child is not properly supported, he will miss out on some very important (for difficult child) treatment. To instead request NO intervention for difficult child but intead have him come home - well, that is how things were when difficult child got the drugs somehow mysteriously into his pocket, so how would sending difficult child back home serve any useful purpose? This problem keeps mysteriously happening, so if insted difficult child is put somewhere where he can get some good treatment for the problems that even husband has to accept do exist, then surely this is also protecting difficult child from whoever is trying to blacken his name. It will be putting a physical barrier between difficult child and whoever is causing the problem, and this will make it easier to idenfity who, if anyone, is "doing this to difficult child".</p><p></p><p>It is what problems will continue to exist despite difficult child's absence, that will tell a great deal. Also, if difficult child is removed from the home but simply incarcerated instead of treated, the long-term outcome for difficult child (and the rest of society) will not be productive. </p><p></p><p>So YOU need to be there OF COURSE to support difficult child and in what way is this also nnot supporting husband/ How could husband have a different agenda to the family's main aim here - to ensure that difficult child gets the right sort of help, and not a raw deal legally?</p><p></p><p>As for being separated under the same roof - I've known people who lived like that. In one case they were able to do it for years, because his business was tied up with her money etc, plus she needed physical and financial support. He couldn't affford to divorce her and she couldn't afford for him to divorce her either, because then she would have had to go to a nursing home - she was physically disabled. Meanwhile tey lived entirely separate lives in just about every way. It actually sounds like the mirror image of your marriage, only in this case there was only one child and it was the wife who had a very unhealthy relationship with her son, ensuring the boy hated his father.</p><p></p><p>Hang in there. You did the right thing not letting him dump responsibility on you for his drinking.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 302674, member: 1991"] "The PubDef gave husband a very, very hard time about not supporting his son after he told her that . She 'yelled at him' for not standing up for difficult child. She said that husband was all difficult child had and husband had to be his son's advocate and that husband needed to support his son. husband did not ask if 'supporting' his son meant he was supposed to lie in court for him. (What happens is difficult child gets alone with people and plays poor little kicked puppy dog and so many people fall for it--and then most of the time, when they know all the details they change their minds; but seldom do people get to the point where they know the whole story--it's just so long and bizarre). " This sounds a lot like husband inventing (or modifying) what was said, to justify his going all out to protect difficult child above absolutely everything. And to protecvt him in his own way, which includes NOT keeping him confined to barracks, not believing that difficult child could do anything wrong, etc. It sounds to me like husband is laying the groundwork for some later "mother tiger" behaviour from him, regarding difficult child. The "untenable" thing - I think you hit the nail on the head. PLus it n=matches my theory - husband is picking and choosing words form all that he is told, and using it to create an entirely different fantasy that happens to fit exactly with what he wants to do all along, only he's 'blaming' all the experts. And doesn't want you in court because you might happen to hear what they REALLY think, and that would blow the lies wide open. The doctor allegedly being two-faced - again, husband is trying to re-create his credibility with you, he's desperate to have you swallow the lies and beleive him. which I find fascinating - is this a technique difficult child uses, in HIS lies? ie to take partial truths, part of a story from one person, add his own wishes and then take parts of other words from other people, twist it all up to make an argument for what HE wants all along, then use the 'divide and conquer' tactics to undermine anyone you might otherwise believe over him? Sounds familiar to me. And another really worrying thing - husband constantly saying, "You're not supporting me. You're going to court and therefore you're not supporting me." In what way is your presence in court a LACK of support for husband? Really? (from his publicly expressed point of view, I mean). Your stated reasons DO make sense and DO NOT indicate a lack of trust in husband. In what way does husband expect you to behave, if you are going to court in support of him? And as you pointed out in this last post - surely the issue is to support difficult child and make sure his needs are met, in the face of the outcome from difficult child's own actions? It is difficult child who has done the wrong thing, difficult child who got caught with drugs on him. And if difficult child is not properly supported, he will miss out on some very important (for difficult child) treatment. To instead request NO intervention for difficult child but intead have him come home - well, that is how things were when difficult child got the drugs somehow mysteriously into his pocket, so how would sending difficult child back home serve any useful purpose? This problem keeps mysteriously happening, so if insted difficult child is put somewhere where he can get some good treatment for the problems that even husband has to accept do exist, then surely this is also protecting difficult child from whoever is trying to blacken his name. It will be putting a physical barrier between difficult child and whoever is causing the problem, and this will make it easier to idenfity who, if anyone, is "doing this to difficult child". It is what problems will continue to exist despite difficult child's absence, that will tell a great deal. Also, if difficult child is removed from the home but simply incarcerated instead of treated, the long-term outcome for difficult child (and the rest of society) will not be productive. So YOU need to be there OF COURSE to support difficult child and in what way is this also nnot supporting husband/ How could husband have a different agenda to the family's main aim here - to ensure that difficult child gets the right sort of help, and not a raw deal legally? As for being separated under the same roof - I've known people who lived like that. In one case they were able to do it for years, because his business was tied up with her money etc, plus she needed physical and financial support. He couldn't affford to divorce her and she couldn't afford for him to divorce her either, because then she would have had to go to a nursing home - she was physically disabled. Meanwhile tey lived entirely separate lives in just about every way. It actually sounds like the mirror image of your marriage, only in this case there was only one child and it was the wife who had a very unhealthy relationship with her son, ensuring the boy hated his father. Hang in there. You did the right thing not letting him dump responsibility on you for his drinking. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Don't Understand abt the Court Stuff
Top