And for the record, while on the whole I know you mean well, it's really dangerous to tell a woman who has been living with a mentally ill spouse that she should consider his needs above the needs of her children (and above her own needs). She's likely been wrestling with doing just that for a long time, and it is not her responsibility to see to his emotional health above her own or her kids'. It's just not. Those things, and the spouse's relationship with his kids, are his responsibility.

I felt very badly for my ex-husband for just this reason too; I found it really hard to advocate for what the kids needed (and of course what I needed, but especially the kids), even as their therapists were encouraging me to bring certain things to the court's attention, because I didn't want him to lose his kids. I knew it would be devastating for him. But here's the correct frame: as long as my ex-husband received mental health care and behaved in ways that were safe and appropriate for the kids, he wasn't losing them at all; if he made good choices, he'd have them half the time, which is a lot. By insisting that he only have full access to them when he was safe enough to be a decent parent (that is to say, by leaving him and filing for custody given the situation), I was actually giving him a clear way forward to have a good relationship with his kids, which is not something he had when we were together (although his mental illness caused him to think he did, while he was abusing them). This frame allowed me to advocate for the kids' interests without feeling guilty for depriving their father of them; it's his choices that determine what kind of relationship he has with the kids, not my choices.

The guessing game of which action you took caused a decline or whether the decline was something that was starting organically and would have been "caused" by any random thing is so familiar. It can really hamper you while you're still in the relationship and living together, because you try so hard to avoid triggering a decline that much of your life ends up being a sort of quasi-effective managing of someone's mental illness, which in the end really cannot be effectively managed from the outside. This is the most stressful point; in DV relationships, it's the most dangerous point. It will almost certainly get better over time, or at least more stable. There was a time (and not a short one) after I left when I sat up late hearing every creak of the house and watching out of the windows; some of that was PTSD but a lot was not. That lessened over time, and is now almost entirely absent in daily life. Unfortunately mental illness of certain types is unpredictable enough that you'll have a guard up of a sort indefinitely, but it becomes less pronounced. I read a useful thing about normal divorces - it was something like, the person who leaves has often been thinking about divorce for some time, here and there - fantasizing about what life might be like, maybe, or worrying about it. The person who has been left, even if they verbalized expectations that you might leave them, hasn't really thought about it seriously, or what it might look like - they haven't processed it rationally, only unconsciously, in fear. So it takes them a while, often about as long as it took you from the first time you seriously rationally considered leaving, to accept that it has really happened. Once they begin to consciously reach the stage you were at when you left, their engagement with the process becomes a lot more rational, and things calm down. I thought that was a pretty useful frame for what I experienced, ymmv

I found it both depressing and empowering (how's that for a duality!) to look at the future risks of the kids' exposure to their dad as things I would be able to solve as they arose, just like I had solved the immediate crisis by leaving and involving the courts (and therapists, etc.). E.g., if unsupervised visitation goes badly, I can request and be granted a return to supervised visitation. If living here becomes truly untenable and dangerous, I can move. If he violates the order of protection, I can call the police (and/or my lawyer, depending). I'd been unable to solve these crises for so long that my habituated response to the fear of a new one was "it'll go back to the way it was before (in some respect or another) and I won't be able to do anything about it again, as was the case for so long." It's not perfect, because the risk you're taking is that something undesirable has to actually happen in order to require the change (but the upside of the risk is that nothing undesirable happens, and you get the benefits for which you took the risk in the first place). But it is something, to be able to say to oneself, "this thing that may happen in the future can be handled." The depressing part is realizing that you're in it for the long haul, even after you leave. Not for forever, but for a while. The empowering part is realizing that you (along with the authority of the state) can continually, as appropriate, effect change.

Having a job and a house (or in my case, supportive family with space to house us while I figured out what to do) is pretty incredible. I found the whole process very difficult, life-changingly so, and I still cannot imagine how women without money, reliable income, and immediate stable housing ever manage to leave. I never cared much about women's shelters before I left, and when I did, I realized very suddenly how much they're doing God's work.

I'm glad you have local family support and also the support of so many professionals involved. It's really a lot better than trying to navigate it alone, in the dark.

You're not looking at 50/50. There will probably be psych evals required on both sides. I'm glad you have a good lawyer, that will help. There will almost certainly be a GAL; having a lot of professionals involved is going to help, and will be a good thing.

Your lawyer will advise you on this more specifically regarding your state and your situation, etc., but ime courts like to see that you are trying to encourage and facilitate all the contact you can safely provide. If there is someone who can safely supervise visitation with the kids while you are separated, that is good, do that. If there isn't (I didn't have anyone), look for an outside provider and offer him (in writing, email is fine) the opportunity to use the outside provider for visitation. If there are concerns of mental health issues impacting the safety of even supervised visitation, look for therapeutic supervised visitation, where a licensed counselor supervises it (and thus can catch and redirect harmful things that are said, note the dynamics, etc.). Even if you think he'll refuse it, offer it. If you can supervise phone calls (if you think they're not safe for the kids without supervision), or can have a family member supervise them, do that. Stay in therapy yourself if it is at all possible. Get a good lawyer. You don't need a shark, but you need someone who will communicate regularly, is experienced in the local courts, and hopefully has at least some experience dealing with divorces that have mental health issues and abuse factors.

Custody will work itself out through the courts. Talk to a lawyer yesterday. You do not have to leave the kids with him alone now if you feel they are unsafe, and the courts (and your lawyer) will help determine what a safe level of visitation or custody is. Keep a journal of the decisions you make regarding custody/contact day-to-day and why. Seriously do this last thing, it is helpful later.

I didn't call a lawyer for several days, and relied instead on legal advice from internet forums and law blogs. Wow did I have to explain the decisions I made as a result of that later in court. A nightmare. I went to my mom's, but I didn't call my in-laws right away, although I knew they would help. I didn't want to hurt my husband's feelings, and I felt ashamed of asking for help. I should have called right away. I didn't change his access to my bank account or my business (which was my sole method of support). I took some of the kids back to visit and left them (because of the advice from aforementioned blogs); I thought I could be arrested for kidnapping if I didn't, although I was also afraid it wasn't safe. I left my vital documents (and the kids' documents), even when I went back under the order of protection, with police there, to get the kids. I thought I could just get them later; he'd hidden them and the police said not to worry about it. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but annoying.

I do on occasion; I'm in Jungian analysis. Sometimes if I read Jung or listen to/read Jungian thought, I get really resistant to the analytic process (and my analyst), so I'm selective about it. It is a great modality! A little woo, but everything non-CBT is a little woo in one way or another.

What drew me to my current therapist (after leaving a year and a half or so of CBT/trauma therapy, which was ok but had its limit) was that the modality claims not to make people happier, or even to solve problems, but to make you more known to yourself and possibly to make your life more interesting. All the rest of it - "you'll have insights so you can change and changing will make you more happy and less stressed and etc." just seemed like hogwash, tbh, and also (after a year and a half) was just not that interesting. I figured if I'm going to pay $$$ to talk to someone once or twice a week, I'd at least like the process to be interesting.

I know you don't want advice, but it's not like "get out in the sun more" advice so I'm going to say it anyway. I'd switch (or add) therapists, and I'd look for one who does depth psychology - psychoanalysis, or Jungian analysis. I don't think this is an issue you're going to solve with more positive thinking or coping strategies or CBT stuff.

I would get a new lawyer, explain all of this to them, and ask if the previous lawyer can be pursued for a malpractice claim. Given all of those facts, it seems like a few (free! likely) consultations with lawyers would make a huge difference. Just because you signed something once (or your lawyer signed it for you?) doesn't mean that it is permanent; family courts generally really prefer kids to have meaningful contact with both parents, and visitation only at the discretion of the parent with primary custody is normally reserved for cases where there is extensive documented abuse, current drug issues, etc. - and even then, mandated supervised visitation is normal. This is all just very abnormal, and I think talking to a few lawyers about it to see what can be done is in your best interest and your kids' best interests. For the stuff, I'd just tell her you can't afford to mail it, but she's welcome to come get it. Or hang onto it if you prefer.

Of course it is a belief, dreamergal, and of course as an atheist I think it's an erroneous one. Certainly I think laws shouldn't allow abuse or violence in the name of any belief. But it is hard for me to understand, rationally, why Christians who do believe in hell without acceptance of Jesus do anything except proselytize with any method legally allowed. It's just the rational conclusion of the belief. When I spoke about giving grace to missionaries, I meant modern Mormon and Seventh Day Adventist, the kind I've experienced. But even if we're talking about the horrors of colonization, while it was evil (and while modern missionaries are annoying), the logic from their point of view makes a lot of sense. No amount of earthly horror can compare to eternal torment. This is why I find the belief itself problematic - because it implies a lot of dangerous and antisocial conclusions.

My reaction too, lol

What would be the corollary to the Shema for Christians, do you think? I agree that the sense (at least in Conservative and Reform, am less familiar with Orthodox or the Haredi) that the central truth is that God is One and Ours, not necessarily that he's universally beneficent, necessarily.

I always try to see the difference in conversion fervour (and the difference in mild conversion acceptabiliy vs the unacceptability of mild deconversion, as regentrude describes above) as a natural and human consequence of the belief itself. If you believe that an eternity of torment awaits unbelievers, it must be an absolutely prime imperative to rescue them from that, and their discomfort in the moment really wouldn't be all that relevant. So I give a lot of grace to missionaries, and to people I know who ask about church, and even suggest its virtues. It hurts my feelings to be proselytized to by someone I thought was actually interested in me, but I understand the drive. Really, I don't understand how conservative, observant Christians ever do anything except win souls to Christ. How could any other activity matter in comparison? It's eternal torment!

Positive

I am an atheist; I have had experiences where I was legitimately afraid I would die (and the fear and legitimacy of the fear lasted for more than a second, not one of those "Damn! I almost hit that deer!" things). I didn't become religious during the experience. For me, believing in a concrete God or Jesus or whatever is as unlikely as it would be for a Christian to reach their deathbed and suddenly believe that Zeus impregnated a swan.

My maternal grandmother was Reform; I've been to temple more than church. If a Hindu or Muslim asked in this community, or mentioned their faith, it wouldn't be with the expectation that I share it, because they're a significant minority here (more than I am as an atheist!) and I think my instinct would be to respond with curiosity, although it's not an interaction I've ever had. I've had the Christian denomination version often.

Sometimes people will then ask directly, and I just say I'm not religious. It's never been a problem.

I grew up in the bible belt, where if you spend the night on Saturday you're going to church on Sunday, so I've been to a service of most common denominations (at least most that are common here).

I just say "oh neat, I've been to a (insert denomination) service before, it was very (insert positive descriptor - peaceful, beautiful, welcoming, etc)" This signals acceptance and positivity while also (by omission, which most people read correctly) signalling that I don't attend a church.

No wait, you already connected it to being naked in a dream. And the unconscious wants eyeliner desperately to cover up nakedness, to not be vulnerably seen. It's almost like in the dream you want to cover the true nature of the eyes by obscuring/reshaping/emphasizing them with eyeliner. Jeez, now I'm curious what it means!