Demonizing the wife

[rumbleseat]

Kids appear to be resilient because they often use coping mechanisms to deal with the lack of control that they have over their own lives. In childhood these mechanism help us to stay sane because we have no control over our environment.

 

They are not resilient because divorce is no big deal. They are resilient because they had no choice- they had to get through it one way or another.

 

These same "resilient" kids rely on those coping mechanisms as adults, leading them to make bad choices and accept circumstances that should not be tolerated. As adults, these skills become unhealthy because we have choices. We are not at the mercy of our parents anymore.

 

Sometimes these kids grow up to be a BS that accepts an unremorseful cheater back time & time again. Sometimes they are an OW that tolerates her role. Sometimes they are a WS that copes by escaping & self medicating. All of them make choices that indicate low self worth and unhealthy coping.

 

Our parents are our models for coping. If we don't learn healthy ways to deal with stress & adversity early, it becomes very hard to change the unhealthy "default". People that live like this can't see their faulty ways of dealing, though. Their circumstances often get blamed on bad luck, unforseen circumstances, or the actions of other people.

 

Older kids & adults can sometimes be better equipped to deal with a parents divorce, because their coping skills are better developed. Those that have poor coping skills will often still be negatively affected.

 

It's easy for older kids to say "My parents shouldn't have stayed together for me, I would've been fine", but they have NO IDEA how they would've turned out if it had happened differently. Kids raised in the security of a an intact family have no frame of reference to judge. Their opinion is coming from a mind that was protected from the realities being a child of divorce. Unless they were raised in an abusive or a neglectful environment, they most certainly benefited from their parents decision to raise them in an intact family.

 

 

I have started a thread in the general relationship discussion forum re: children and infidelity. I would like to discuss your post, but will do so there so as to not tj here. I hope you will choose to participate.

[Got it]

Kids appear to be resilient because they often use coping mechanisms to deal with the lack of control that they have over their own lives. In childhood these mechanism help us to stay sane because we have no control over our environment.

 

They are not resilient because divorce is no big deal. They are resilient because they had no choice- they had to get through it one way or another.

 

These same "resilient" kids rely on those coping mechanisms as adults, leading them to make bad choices and accept circumstances that should not be tolerated. As adults, these skills become unhealthy because we have choices. We are not at the mercy of our parents anymore.

 

Sometimes these kids grow up to be a BS that accepts an unremorseful cheater back time & time again. Sometimes they are an OW that tolerates her role. Sometimes they are a WS that copes by escaping & self medicating. All of them make choices that indicate low self worth and unhealthy coping.

 

Our parents are our models for coping. If we don't learn healthy ways to deal with stress & adversity early, it becomes very hard to change the unhealthy "default". People that live like this can't see their faulty ways of dealing, though. Their circumstances often get blamed on bad luck, unforseen circumstances, or the actions of other people.

 

Older kids & adults can sometimes be better equipped to deal with a parents divorce, because their coping skills are better developed. Those that have poor coping skills will often still be negatively affected.

 

It's easy for older kids to say "My parents shouldn't have stayed together for me, I would've been fine", but they have NO IDEA how they would've turned out if it had happened differently. Kids raised in the security of a an intact family have no frame of reference to judge. Their opinion is coming from a mind that was protected from the realities being a child of divorce. Unless they were raised in an abusive or a neglectful environment, they most certainly benefited from their parents decision to raise them in an intact family.

 

But this is the disillusion of the intact home, that it potentially offers any security. It can be more like of "pick your evil". Neither is the best option, just which one is less worse.

 

I know for myself that I can't say if it would have been better if they divorced but what I saw and experienced because they stayed married sure makes it seem worthwhile to have given divorce a go ahead. Ideally? different parents or parents who actually were happy. In all seriousness that is all I ever wanted. I was the "fixer" the "good" one, the one that was convinced that if I didn't stay on them like white on rice out in a store, that I would be forgotten. They seemed like they had so much going on that even as young as 5, I was certain that I could be forgotten. As a teen, I developed anorexia as a coping mechanism. They say that mother's with dieting issues have children that are more likely to have eating disorders. I spent most of my late teen years and early 20s actively anorexic and bulimic for a short time.

 

Sorry but pick your poison, parents end up doing more harm then good. Maybe if people actually gave more consideration to the damage they can do they would think through having them a little better.

[ForeverHopeful1]

Lol, hear hear! It intrigues me why some believe that everyone MUST want what they have in the exact same pattern that they have? Some of us have had it and found it distasteful. Imagining that there are all these jealous haters is probably comforting, but FAR from the truth. I would be interested in figuring out how one gets to that level of delusion, imagining that everyone must want to be them? I would call it Paris Hilton syndrome if I could name it, lol.

 

Well from reading around here, MOST women I see do want to be with their AP. So you see, from what one gathers around here, a good majority would like to be the wife and dont want to be the OW sharing a man. Some women actually do have a little bit of their dignity. If you look around, more often than not, OW would like the wife to go away so they can have him forever and ever and ever. That MIGHT be why some individuals around here think OW would trade places in an instant. OW will tell you that. Not you. I get that. But most.

[threelaurels]

He feels guilty for his affair with me, but he feels that it was the right thing for his children at the time - even if it wasn't the best thing for him or his wife at the time to stay married, that's what they chose to do..

 

This is the worst justification for having an affair I've ever seen on this board. Having an affair over divorce for his children's sake? Right

 

Having an affair provided no benefit to his children. Every hour he spent with you was time he could have been spending with his kids, unless he was only with you during school hours or while the kids were at soccer practice and whatnot.

 

The only person in that family who benefitted from the affair was him. Even if he didn't think he would be caught, he had to consider the "what if?" and how it would impact his children.

 

He did everything he could prior to the affair to avoid the affair - but he was not getting any cooperation from his ex wife (which she acknowledges and admits her own issues with conflict and avoiding it at all costs, especially when it involves discussions about intimacy which she just simply cannot talk about for her own reasons).

 

Really? He went to her and told her he was so unhappy in their marriage that he was considering an affair? He told his wife he had feelings for another woman and didn't know how to cope with that in a way that doesn't involve cheating?He asked for an open relationship and was denied?

 

It's easy to stand on the outside looking in and talk about how EASY divorce is - the reality of divorce is that it is rarely easy for anyone involved, and acting as if it is is dismissive of real fears and feelings of human beings.

 

This may be true, but he had to consider the fact that divorces are much more difficult and more complicated when infidelity is involved.

[snowflakes88]

Just peeking in to say that as a practicing attorney, I have never heard of a court granting a woman a restraining order against her husband simply because she didn't feel like talking to him. That's definitely a new one.

[ladydesigner]

The only person in that family who benefitted from the affair was him. Even if he didn't think he would be caught, he had to consider the "what if?" and how it would impact his children.

 

Omg absolutely! Actually the two people benefitting are the WS and the AP, until some sort of Dday or ultimatum. I will never see anything beneficial about an affair after what I have been through. And in the end even they (my WH and MOW) didn't benefit. The MOW is homeless and a wreck, my WH can barely recognize himself anymore and feels so much shame now it paralyzes him at times. Then me and the kids, I feel like my entire life has been nuked same with the kids. My daughter intercepted their 'I love you texts'. I couldn't even hide their A from her. NONE of us will ever be the same.

[threelaurels]

She was able to prove emotional abuse - the same kind of things he did to me. The court found that reasonable terms to grant her the restraining order so that she wouldn't have to deal with him. There was no restriction on his access to his children or calling them, just her. He has never been physically aggressive or violent, but verbally? Yeah, he'll wear you slick sometimes with that... lol. I TOTALLY understood why she wanted to avoid him for 30 days after he got served the papers, lol.

 

Emotional abuse is not grounds for even a temporary restraining order. I used to process RO papers at a previous job, and I am very familiar with the requirements in several Western countries due to my research. It is difficult to get a RO, and they do not give them out lightly. You have to prove that the person you are getting an RO against is an immediate physical threat to you and would likely harm you should you encounter them again.

 

I know several women who were denied ROs against their rapists, so trust me when I say they are not easy to get. You have been fed a spoonful of lies, because there is no way on earth this happened.

[Quiet Storm]

But this is the disillusion of the intact home, that it potentially offers any security. It can be more like of "pick your evil". Neither is the best option, just which one is less worse.

 

I know for myself that I can't say if it would have been better if they divorced but what I saw and experienced because they stayed married sure makes it seem worthwhile to have given divorce a go ahead. Ideally? different parents or parents who actually were happy. In all seriousness that is all I ever wanted. I was the "fixer" the "good" one, the one that was convinced that if I didn't stay on them like white on rice out in a store, that I would be forgotten. They seemed like they had so much going on that even as young as 5, I was certain that I could be forgotten. As a teen, I developed anorexia as a coping mechanism. They say that mother's with dieting issues have children that are more likely to have eating disorders. I spent most of my late teen years and early 20s actively anorexic and bulimic for a short time.

 

Sorry but pick your poison, parents end up doing more harm then good. Maybe if people actually gave more consideration to the damage they can do they would think through having them a little better.

 

Regardless of whether your parents divorced or not, I believe that your mom's issues would have affected you in a negative way. A divorce may have been worse, because even if you were not aware of it, your dad probably helped to buffer your mom's issues. My dad was an addict when I was a child, and my mother was his enabler. They both had issues, but the marriage helped to buffer them, IMO.

 

An intact family, as long as it is not abusive or neglectful, provides stability & consistency. An intact family with emotionally unhealthy parents can & does damage kids, but divorce just gives the kids another set of issues to deal with ON TOP of the original problems. You say pick your poison....but IMO, having emotionally unhealthy parents and also going through a divorce is double poison. Your parents are still your parents whether they are together or not. At least if they stay together (and are not abusvie to each other), you don't face all the changes that divorce brings.

 

In most cases, divorce does not make the parents happier. Especially in the first few years. Their stress levels go up and their quality of life goes down. Their focus often changes from the kids & household to work & their social life.

 

Fathers have a very important role in a child's life- being a protector. Even if flawed & damaged themselves, just the presence of a father in the home has probably deterred more instances of sexual abuse than we can imagine. That is a HUGE benefit that kids from intact homes have, an asset that they do not even realize. Stepfathers & mom's boyfriends gain access to kids- a scary thought when 1/4 girls & 1/6 US boys are sexually abused. Even pedophile relatives, like uncles & grandfathers, are less likely to victimize kids with fathers in the home, as with coaches & priests.

[threelaurels]

Emotional abuse is not grounds for even a temporary restraining order. I used to process RO papers at a previous job, and I am very familiar with the requirements in several Western countries due to my research. It is difficult to get a RO, and they do not give them out lightly. You have to prove that the person you are getting an RO against is an immediate physical threat to you and would likely harm you should you encounter them again.

 

I know several women who were denied ROs against their rapists, so trust me when I say they are not easy to get. You have been fed a spoonful of lies, because there is no way on earth this happened.

 

I should also add that having an RO granted against a parent always gives the other parent 100% full custody, except in very unusual circumstances. In those cases, the custody exchange would take place at the Sheriff's office, and there is no way he would be allowed to call the house to speak to the kids but not her.

 

Again, I'm calling bull****.

[threelaurels]

Not true. I am not going to say what state I live in, but it's pretty standard here to grant restraining orders along with the serving of divorce papers. Your information is incorrect as I know exactly why the restraining order was granted due to having an attorney friend who was present for her request and presentation and granting of said restraining order.

 

It is standard in some states to issue ATROs along with divorce papers, which are very different from ROs. All an ATRO does is prevent a person from altering financial records. They are not 'no contact' orders in any way.

 

I'm not sure why a random attorney who wasn't representing a client would be present during the granting of an RO. That has never been standard procedure in the cases I've worked, but I suppose some jurisdictions are different. Most attorneys have better things to do than sit on random cases. They are usually very busy people.

 

If actual ROs are being inappropriately granted in your jurisdiction, I'm sure the ACLU would love to hear about it. It would cost your state millions.

[rumbleseat]

It is standard in some states to issue ATROs along with divorce papers, which are very different from ROs. All an ATRO does is prevent a person from altering financial records. They are not 'no contact' orders in any way.

 

I'm not sure why a random attorney who wasn't representing a client would be present during the granting of an RO. That has never been standard procedure in the cases I've worked, but I suppose some jurisdictions are different. Most attorneys have better things to do than sit on random cases. They are usually very busy people.

 

If actual ROs are being inappropriately granted in your jurisdiction, I'm sure the ACLU would love to hear about it. It would cost your state millions.

 

I'm also wondering about the ethics of an attorney who would discuss confidential information about a bs with the ow who is involved with that ws.

 

Yes, some things are public record, but where I live, a lawyer could face severe sanctions for type of thing.

[threelaurels]

Honestly? I think you're calling bs because you want identifying information about me, that I won't give. You are incorrect. His ex wife went around the restraining order in order to allow him access to their children - through family members, but held out the part that kept him from having contact with her. I don't know where you get your information, but obviously, we don't live in the same area. And having the exchange at the sheriff's office? What? Why would they do that? Unless the children were in some sort of danger? And, if they were, or she thought they were, I doubt she would have allowed him access. She even packed him a care package of the things he would need while he was not allowed access back into the home for the 30 days - she wasn't afraid, she just didn't want to have to talk to him about anything and knew he would try.

 

Why would I care who you are? I haven't asked for any identifying information from you. Your story simply doesn't make any sense. I have worked hundreds of RO cases, and I have never heard anything that even sounds remotely like what you are talking about.

 

She does not have the authority to alter the conditions of an RO, just as crime victims do not have the authority to stop a case from being prosecuted. It is out of their hands. Only a judge could alter it, and I doubt any judge would grant that request. There would be no way to prove that he wasn't violating the order by calling the house. She could easily claim he was when he was really calling the kids and have him thrown in jail.

 

Custody exchanges being done at the Sheriff's office is standard procedure. Where else could someone leave the kids that is safe when the other parent can't come within so many feet of the other?

[ladydesigner]

Fathers have a very important role in a child's life- being a protector. Even if flawed & damaged themselves, just the presence of a father in the home has probably deterred more instances of sexual abuse than we can imagine. That is a HUGE benefit that kids from intact homes have, an asset that they do not even realize. Stepfathers & mom's boyfriends gain access to kids- a scary thought when 1/4 girls & 1/6 US boys are sexually abused. Even pedophile relatives, like uncles & grandfathers, are less likely to victimize kids with fathers in the home, as with coaches & priests.

 

This is my worst fear having been sexually abused myself at 6. I would probably never trust a man around my daughter should my WH and I get a D, I am scarred from my experience. I will not even hire a male babysitter. I'm sorry to generalize but my abuser was my brother (a male).

[threelaurels]

Well, calling bs just because you haven't heard of it is sort of rude, no? I mean, there are probably a lot of things you have never heard of in this world that exist or happen. I'm not saying she set up the guidelines of the restraining order (or whatever it was), but she had to follow it too. She wasn't allowed to contact him either. But, he had access to his children and she sent him a care package. That is not a woman who is "afraid" of her soon to be exhusband. I have never heard of exchanging children at the sheriff's office. Setting up a neutral place, yes, having to have authority figures there for said exchange? Never seen it needed, but I don't "work hundreds of RO cases" as you do either.

 

Because, if I identified where I am and what the exact laws/procedures are in this case, you could possibly, figure out identifying information. I have no idea why you would care, but it seems you are searching for identifying information and if I can't/won't give it, you call bs.

 

Considering that I am paid to be an expert in Criminal Justice, there are actually very few "standard" things I don't know about courts and the system. If something is not standard, I might not know about it.

 

I find your story hard to believe mostly because, if this was the case, he would have grounds for a very big lawsuit against her and, if she was proven to have lied in order to get the RO/PO, she would be in a lot of trouble.

[Shepp]

Today he called me from his truck, which he was driving for the first time since surgery, but he had to be home by 1:15 because his wife was out and she won't let him drive since his surgery. He didn't want her to catch him. He said she would take the keys away if she caught him driving. I said WTF? Is she your mommy or what?

No quite clearly shes his wife and is trying to make sure he follows doctors orders for the sake of his health!

My nan did the same thing for my grandad a few years ago - because she loves him, was worried about him.......54 years they've been married - strongest couple I know! That's what you do when you care about people - try and protect them.

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to give much regard for returning the favour to her.

 

You can try to make her out to be the wicked witch of the west - hell maybe she is - but it doesn't make what his betrayal any better or any less gutless.

 

He doesn't seem to like her much either.

[threelaurels]

He didn't say she lied to get the restraining order. He asked for a hearing, they had one, until the hearing there was a temporary restraining order in place between he and his wife, the children were excluded from it. He agreed, at the hearing, that he had been emotionally abusive towards her. He didn't deny it at all. Their marriage was in a very bad place, not an excuse for his behavior and he KNEW that, but it is what it is. The order was in place for 30 days, and before it was even up/done, they were attending events for the kids and sitting together. She was not afraid of him, she simply did not want to discuss anything.

 

"Upon the filing of a verified petition pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 and for good cause shown in the petition, the court may immediately issue an ex parte order of protection. An immediate and present danger of abuse to the petitioner shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. An ex parte order of protection entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion" § 455.035.1.

 

This is the statute for the state identified in the text you quoted. It is fairly standard phrasing. Under this statute, he would have either had to physically harm her (battery) or make her believe she was in imminent danger of being physically harmed (assault) for even the temporary order to be granted. There is simply no way that a judge would interpret emotional abuse to be either immediate or present danger. Either she lied to get the order, or he lied to you about the circumstances under which it was granted.

 

This is all I'm going to say on the matter, because the thread has obviously be derailed and I'm sure someone has hit the report button by now

[ComingInHot]

wtfh wrote, " He didn't say she lied to get the restraining order. He asked for a hearing, they had one, until the hearing there was a temporary restraining order in place between he and his wife, the children were excluded from it. He agreed, at the hearing, that he had been emotionally abusive towards her. He didn't deny it at all. Their marriage was in a very bad place, not an excuse for his behavior and he KNEW that, but it is what it is. The order was in place for 30 days, and before it was even up/done, they were attending events for the kids and sitting together. She was not afraid of him, she simply did not want to discuss anything."

 

And yet the BS is attacked as if She/He's some demon... sheesh.

[ladydesigner]

wtfh wrote, " He didn't say she lied to get the restraining order. He asked for a hearing, they had one, until the hearing there was a temporary restraining order in place between he and his wife, the children were excluded from it. He agreed, at the hearing, that he had been emotionally abusive towards her. He didn't deny it at all. Their marriage was in a very bad place, not an excuse for his behavior and he KNEW that, but it is what it is. The order was in place for 30 days, and before it was even up/done, they were attending events for the kids and sitting together. She was not afraid of him, she simply did not want to discuss anything."

 

And yet the BS is attacked as if She/He's some demon... sheesh.

 

How am I not surprised

[ForeverHopeful1]

Just peeking in to say that as a practicing attorney, I have never heard of a court granting a woman a restraining order against her husband simply because she didn't feel like talking to him. That's definitely a new one.

 

An Affair Fog will do that to folks, and make people believe anything that comes out of a cheating SOBs mouth!!!! I sometimes wonder if they actually hear anything properly. I have to laugh at the comments made at times too. Just ridiculous! IF she was granted a R/O, it was because she needed one, not because she didn't want to speak, out loud, to another human being. The crap people say and the crap "Others" believe is just absolutely ridiculous. Its actually why I stay tuned!!! LOL

[threelaurels]

Nope, not true. It was to avoid him "disturbing the peace" with her by contacting her and attempting to talk about it. I can promise you that there was no fear on her end of him of danger. Otherwise, she wouldn't have been attending things with him or breaking the order prior to it dissolving.

 

Your interpretation is incorrect. The order prevents him from disturbing the peace by contacting her, but it is not granted on that basis. The order can only be granted if the petitioner is in immediate and present danger of abuse.

 

Imma shut up now, f'real.

[velvette]

Nope, not true. It was to avoid him "disturbing the peace" with her by contacting her and attempting to talk about it. I can promise you that there was no fear on her end of him of danger. Otherwise, she wouldn't have been attending things with him or breaking the order prior to it dissolving.

 

This is typical of victims of domestic abuse until they get away from their abusers. Women frequently request RO's and file charges only to violate themselves and try to get the charges dropped or refuse to testify. Its part of the cycle of domestic abuse. Drives law enforcement crazy.

 

I really don't get you though. You have said this man is manipulative and narcissistic and that he makes you feel beaten down and you believe he did the same to her. Why is your story so inconsistent?

[ladydesigner]

T/j here WTHF it sounds like you dodged a bullet and did his wife a favor. I hope that she is safe and will find someone that does not abuse her and her children. Sometimes emotional and verbal abuse can be more damaging mentally, so either way I believe it is good you and her are away from this man. end t/j/

[jlola]

T/j here WTHF it sounds like you dodged a bullet and did his wife a favor. I hope that she is safe and will find someone that does not abuse her and her children. Sometimes emotional and verbal abuse can be more damaging mentally, so either way I believe it is good you and her are away from this man. end t/j/

 

The deeper we go no these MM stories, the more dysfunction you see. Why would any woman who has no legal bonds with these men, no children, put up with such broken people?

 

They always say never involve yourself with anyone who has more issues than you do. These men are trainwrecks.

[whichwayisup]

The deeper we go no these MM stories, the more dysfunction you see. Why would any woman who has no legal bonds with these men, no children, put up with such broken people?

 

They always say never involve yourself with anyone who has more issues than you do. These men are trainwrecks.

 

Because when someone is totally in love and wrapped up in the affair fantasy, they can't see the real deep flaws of that person, or if they do see them, chances are high that they believe that the flawed person would never do a 180 on them and treat them badly. Emotions are powerful and can make one blind.

[Got it]

Regardless of whether your parents divorced or not, I believe that your mom's issues would have affected you in a negative way. A divorce may have been worse, because even if you were not aware of it, your dad probably helped to buffer your mom's issues. My dad was an addict when I was a child, and my mother was his enabler. They both had issues, but the marriage helped to buffer them, IMO.

 

An intact family, as long as it is not abusive or neglectful, provides stability & consistency. An intact family with emotionally unhealthy parents can & does damage kids, but divorce just gives the kids another set of issues to deal with ON TOP of the original problems. You say pick your poison....but IMO, having emotionally unhealthy parents and also going through a divorce is double poison. Your parents are still your parents whether they are together or not. At least if they stay together (and are not abusvie to each other), you don't face all the changes that divorce brings.

 

In most cases, divorce does not make the parents happier. Especially in the first few years. Their stress levels go up and their quality of life goes down. Their focus often changes from the kids & household to work & their social life.

 

Fathers have a very important role in a child's life- being a protector. Even if flawed & damaged themselves, just the presence of a father in the home has probably deterred more instances of sexual abuse than we can imagine. That is a HUGE benefit that kids from intact homes have, an asset that they do not even realize. Stepfathers & mom's boyfriends gain access to kids- a scary thought when 1/4 girls & 1/6 US boys are sexually abused. Even pedophile relatives, like uncles & grandfathers, are less likely to victimize kids with fathers in the home, as with coaches & priests.

 

Before you start campaigning for my father let me fill in a bit more. While the affair was wrong, my father's personality has done enough damage before, and well after that is 100% who he is. He is a KISA, with a LONG standing abandonment issues with his mother which makes him a very passive aggressive anger issue that has continued up through today (actually my brother felt the brunt of it over this past weekend because he "didn't read between the lines" on an email request that my father sent us. I am just better at knowing when there will be a set up for explosion than he is).

 

In all actuality, both my parents believed they were protecting from the other. I can say that through all of my childhood, up to I went to college, I would have preferred if I didn't really see him that often as it was always so stressful and you were always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

What I have seen is my parents have done very well divorced and the fighting and toxicity greatly diminished. Now we were young adults by that point so a number of family pressures were eased.

 

I am sorry but I really can't buy that divorce would have been worse. I don't know that. I only know what I went through. I know that I knew the sound of my father's car pulling up to the house when I was inside. I knew that silence allowed thinking so I peppered with questions, I knew to read facial expressions and the atmosphere and would try and head off their explosions. I knew to dread holidays because though my mom would decorate the house (and she did do a great job on birthday and holidays even with little money) you knew that they would get into a fight. I can't say I remember any Christmas that he didn't get pissed about and storm off. The usual complaint? My mom let us open one gift on Christmas Eve and he was adamantly against that because that wasn't his childhood tradition.

 

Trust me I can give a number of issues with my mom though she did a great job when we were young. She just didn't know how to adjust when we became adults as well.