Updates 2023 (job hunt etc)

[Rosie_0801]

4 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

There is a clause in the agreement that my lawyer quoted in reference to our objections which are not solely moral objections. I think I explained this upthread.

The judge may or may not agree with you guys. I don’t think I’m making it worse. If he gets to move her in, so be it. I will know I tried to stop it. That’s better than nothing in my heart and mind. 

Again, feel free to disagree. These are my thoughts and not all judges think alike. 

Sure, but even if you win, you're making even more problems than you're curing. (Probably not with the judge, but certainly with your ex.)

You shouldn't do that because you have too many already. ((hugs))

[heartlikealion]

4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Judges do not care what religion you raise your kids in and do not want to interfere in such matters.

A judge will, if they are being polite, tell you that your ex is allowed to change his mind about stuff like that.

“Moral fitness” is one of the Albright factors in our state. The judges weigh all the Albright factors. The cohabitation alone is not enough but a non male relative moving in with a girl isn’t great. 

I literally have to read monthly articles on abuse (95% about children, the rest about other vulnerable people like elderly) to keep my Protection of Children status with the diocese. I read about grooming, molestation, trafficking, etc. There’s a reason many parents object to sleepovers. Now we’re inviting a permanent sleepover scenario where kids can be unsupervised. Just don’t like it. 

[heartlikealion]

4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Sure, but even if you win, you're making even more problems than you're curing. (Probably not with the judge, but certainly with your ex.)

You shouldn't do that because you have too many already. ((hugs))

I’m not sure I see it that way. 

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

There is a clause in the agreement that my lawyer quoted in reference to our objections which are not solely moral objections. I think I explained this upthread.

The judge may or may not agree with you guys. I don’t think I’m making it worse. If he gets to move her in, so be it. I will know I tried to stop it. That’s better than nothing in my heart and mind. 

Again, feel free to disagree. These are my thoughts and not all judges think alike. 

I don’t blame you for trying.  I hope you get a judge who cares about this stuff.  But if not the bolded is where you can rest easy.  You have done all you can and this is out of your hands to some degree.  

[Scarlett]

And at least you can tell your kids you did everything possible.  

[heartlikealion]

@Scarlett Exactly. My thinking is sure maybe they like the idea at first. Then reality sets in and maybe they don’t like it (more people to share a bathroom, etc) and if they complain I can have some comfort knowing I tried. 

[Rosie_0801]

2 hours ago, heartlikealion said:

I’m not sure I see it that way. 

I am suggesting caution because I didn't enjoy the consequences of trying too hard, and I didn't know back then I wasn't supposed to try so hard.

I'm also suggesting caution on the basis of practicality. 
Even if the court ruled in your favour, he can disregard it and do as he pleases anyway. You will look like the bad guy for dragging him through court all the time when he's just trying to live his life, and you will run out of money before he runs out of the desire to be a jerk. Every dollar you spend on this is a dollar that isn't available to provide for your kids if they ever return or for your old age.

You have alllll my sympathies though. I know how rubbish it all is.

 

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Rosie_0801 said:

I am suggesting caution because I didn't enjoy the consequences of trying too hard, and I didn't know back then I wasn't supposed to try so hard.

I'm also suggesting caution on the basis of practicality. 
Even if the court ruled in your favour, he can disregard it and do as he pleases anyway. You will look like the bad guy for dragging him through court all the time when he's just trying to live his life, and you will run out of money before he runs out of the desire to be a jerk. Every dollar you spend on this is a dollar that isn't available to provide for your kids if they ever return or for your old age.

You have alllll my sympathies though. I know how rubbish it all is.

 

Please don’t quote but I have financial help so I’m not losing money on this but he will. 

Thank you for your insight. 

[heartlikealion]

Slowly getting house in order. I painted kitchen (Dad helped some). Finished painting around the blinds this week. 
Landlord added new doors that didn’t match. He paid for paint and knocked a bit off my rent when I painted. 

before/after 

[Faith-manor]

That looks great, Heart!

[Jaybee]

Wow! What a difference! That really brightens up the space.

[heartlikealion]

Yes, I love it. So much happier lol 

[bolt.]

When I first read of what you are trying to accomplish through your lawyer, I was really surprised that your lawyer found it within their ethical capacity to even write up the documents to seek an outcome as unlikely and unrealistic as the one you are looking for.

Imagine if people could just go out and get court orders preventing their ex-spouses from living with someone new! What a crazy world that would be.

Honestly, if you win that right over your ex-husband, I imagine the precedent it would set would change the face of divorce law for your whole state -- and possibly the country.

But that outcome is really unlikely. That's why I'm shocked your lawyer cooperated with this kind of frivolous litigation tactic. It borders on harassment. And it's certainly not a requirement of your faith that you "try" to use the force of law to compel someone you have no relationship with to abide by a religion they have no interest in abiding by so that your shared children aren't exposed to the idea that not all of their loved ones live according to the same religious values.

Your children's wellbeing is not compromised by your ex-husband's new honey and/or her child/ren. It would be far more healthy for you (and for your kids) if you teach yourself to let go of whatever goes on at their other house and focus on all the good things going on in your house.

[heartlikealion]

2 minutes ago, bolt. said:

When I first read of what you are trying to accomplish through your lawyer, I was really surprised that your lawyer found it within their ethical capacity to even write up the documents to seek an outcome as unlikely and unrealistic as the one you are looking for.

Imagine if people could just go out and get court orders preventing their ex-spouses from living with someone new! What a crazy world that would be.

Honestly, if you win that right over your ex-husband, I imagine the precedent it would set would change the face of divorce law for your whole state -- and possibly the country.

But that outcome is really unlikely. That's why I'm shocked your lawyer cooperated with this kind of frivolous litigation tactic. It borders on harassment. And it's certainly not a requirement of your faith that you "try" to use the force of law to compel someone you have no relationship with to abide by a religion they have no interest in abiding by so that your shared children aren't exposed to the idea that not all of their loved ones live according to the same religious values.

Your children's wellbeing is not compromised by your ex-husband's new honey and/or her child/ren. It would be far more healthy for you (and for your kids) if you teach yourself to let go of whatever goes on at their other house and focus on all the good things going on in your house.

Several people agree with you. And others agree with me. Morality clauses do exist. I just didn’t know to ask for one. 

An old friend private messaged me that they moved in with a guy and his kids and one of the boys abused her daughter but her daughter didn’t admit it at first. She got away from the guy and his kids but the damage was done. She totally understood my hesitation for a 12 yr old boy to move in with my dd. As I said before, this is not strictly about morality. 

[heartlikealion]

Can I just also add WOW. Please read the whole story before chastising me. Every one of you not just bolt. 

[bolt.]

56 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

Can I just also add WOW. Please read the whole story before chastising me. Every one of you not just bolt. 

I have been reading your whole story. For months. You can find my supportive and logical comments starting on page one here.

And I wasn't chastising you. I'm really not surprised that you want the things that you want. You're just a mom who loves her kids doing the best you can. I'm entirely on your side here. Many good and loving parents have done 'borderline' things when they are trying to work towards the best life for their kids. That's what love does. No-one should feel bad about that.

I'm chastising your lawyer. It's up to your lawyer to know the law and give you good legal advice, and not proceed with unethical requests, however heartfelt they might be. It's unprofessional. I don't think you are being well-served by your lawyer. It might be in your best interests to switch to someone new if you need legal services in the future.

For you, my only hope is for your healthy future. Letting go of the other household is something I believe to be a big step in that direction. It's not advice intended to harm you in any way.

[heartlikealion]

1 minute ago, bolt. said:

I have been reading your whole story. For months. You can find my supportive and logical comments starting on page one here.

And I wasn't chastising you. I'm really not surprised that you want the things that you want. You're just a mom who loves her kids doing the best you can. I'm entirely on your side here. Many good and loving parents have done 'borderline' things when they are trying to work towards the best life for their kids. That's what love does. No-one should feel bad about that.

I'm chastising your lawyer. It's up to your lawyer to know the law and give you good legal advice, and not proceed with unethical requests, however heartfelt they might be. It's unprofessional. I don't think you are being well-served by your lawyer. It might be in your best interests to switch to someone new if you need legal services in the future.

For you, my only hope is for your healthy future. Letting go of the other household is something I believe to be a big step in that direction. It's not advice intended to harm you in any way.

Well it sure came across as bashing me for asking my lawyer to do anything. I read your post as stay in your lane, you’re out of line. 

Sounds like you’re saying I should only seek counsel from someone that thinks like you. 

While he may not be the best choice, it’s hard to say. Lawyer hopping is expensive and time consuming. He’s my second lawyer. 

Some people would say moving in a woman and her child (that dd has met once!) is not in the best interests of the children. If you (general you) cannot see that, then maybe don’t bother replying again because we are so far on opposite sides of the parenting continuum. 

[Idalou]

I just looked up morality clauses in divorce. Seems like it began in southern states, back when cohabitating without marriage was illegal. It is still fairly common, contrary to what Bolt thinks. There are clauses for adult sleepovers, actual cohabitation, even drug and alcohol use while having the children in them house. I think most of the clauses are explicitly written in the divorce papers so that both parents had to agree to it.

 I still think it could backfire, but I do wish you the best, Heart. I can only imagine the frustrations and heartache you have gone through. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Idalou

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Idalou said:

I just looked up morality clauses in divorce. Seems like it began in southern states, back when cohabitating without marriage was illegal. It is still fairly common, contrary to what Bolt thinks. There are clauses for adult sleepovers, actual cohabitation, even drug and alcohol use while having the children in them house.

 I still think it could backfire, but I do wish you the best, Heart. I can only imagine the frustrations and heartache you have gone through. 

Yes and as I said it's still on the books in our state that cohabitation is illegal (though not enforced. From my understanding what prohibited it from being officially removed from the books is causing waves with conservatives). 

Several of my friends (most of the people on my Facebook live in the South) asked me immediately, "isn't that against your settlement??" because they were familiar with clauses address sleepovers and cohabitation. Of course others were like, "what's the big deal?" 

[bolt.]

32 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

Well it sure came across as bashing me for asking my lawyer to do anything. I read your post as stay in your lane, you’re out of line. 

Sounds like you’re saying I should only seek counsel from someone that thinks like you. 

While he may not be the best choice, it’s hard to say. Lawyer hopping is expensive and time consuming. He’s my second lawyer. 

Some people would say moving in a woman and her child (that dd has met once!) is not in the best interests of the children. If you (general you) cannot see that, then maybe don’t bother replying again because we are so far on opposite sides of the parenting continuum. 

I don't think we are actually on opposite sides of anything.

I'm just concerned that your lawyer might be taking advantage of your deep affection for your children in order to get your money into their own pockets. It may also backfire on your kids by increasing the conflict and tension in your co-parenting situation. Those things would make me sad for you.

If you don't see it that way, I don't mind, but I don't regret trying to offer what help I can into your difficult situation.

[Rosie_0801]

46 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

Some people would say moving in a woman and her child (that dd has met once!) is not in the best interests of the children. If you (general you) cannot see that, then maybe don’t bother replying again because we are so far on opposite sides of the parenting continuum. 

It's not that we can't see that, it's that "the best interests of the child" has a different meaning in a legal setting to what normal people think those words mean.

I'm telling you that because nobody bothered to tell me. You will do whatever you think is best. My duty to a fellow human stops with informing.

[heartlikealion]

4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

It's not that we can't see that, it's that "the best interests of the child" has a different meaning in a legal setting to what normal people think those words mean.

I don't think any of us know. Even my lawyer said it's totally up to the judge's discernment. You guys remember the "shark" I met with a long time ago? She pointed out propriety issues (propriety was her word) during our meeting (in regards to some of xh's behavior... nothing which was illegal). So I'm led to believe some judges care about similar things. /shrug

[pinball]

2 hours ago, heartlikealion said:

Several people agree with you. And others agree with me. Morality clauses do exist. I just didn’t know to ask for one. 

An old friend private messaged me that they moved in with a guy and his kids and one of the boys abused her daughter but her daughter didn’t admit it at first. She got away from the guy and his kids but the damage was done. She totally understood my hesitation for a 12 yr old boy to move in with my dd. As I said before, this is not strictly about morality. 

I would do everything in my power to keep an unknown adolescent male from living in the same house as my younger daughter, especially when I am not there.

i hope it works out for the best for you and your children!

[Heartstrings]

4 hours ago, bolt. said:

gine if people could just go out and get court orders preventing their ex-spouses from living with someone new! What a crazy world that would be.

I’m still surprised it’s not in the decree to begin with.  It’s still standard practice in Arkansas to include a morality clause saying no unmarried opposites sex non-relatives can stay overnight, let alone move in.  You can lose custody over it AND the police will come verify it for you.  Seriously.  I know people where the girlfriend lives in the home the week the children are gone then stays with friends or family the week the kids are there.  

[Heartstrings]

4 hours ago, heartlikealion said:

d friend private messaged me that they moved in with a guy and his kids and one of the boys abused her daughter but her daughter didn’t admit it at first. She got away from the guy and his kids but the damage was done. She totally understood my hesitation for a 12 yr old boy to move in with my dd. As I said before, this is not strictly about morality. 

Unmarried, non biologically related men in the home are one of the biggest risks for a child, including boyfriends and step siblings.  It’s not a small increase either.  

[heartlikealion]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Unmarried, non biologically related men in the home are one of the biggest risks for a child, including boyfriends and step siblings.  It’s not a small increase either.  

can you clarify the last line. I’m not sure I understand. You mean risks between males vs females or relatives vs non relatives or ? 

[Scarlett]

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I’m still surprised it’s not in the decree to begin with.  It’s still standard practice in Arkansas to include a morality clause saying no unmarried opposites sex non-relatives can stay overnight, let alone move in.  You can lose custody over it AND the police will come verify it for you.  Seriously.  I know people where the girlfriend lives in the home the week the children are gone then stays with friends or family the week the kids are there.  

Yep.  It was in my divorce language. 

[Scarlett]

I don’t know the statistic but children are at great risk from a non related male.   I worry greatly about your son and a non related female in his home.,it is a very dangerous situation. Both reality and accusations 

[heartlikealion]

They have a week to respond to the letter and I have no idea if the letter was even given to xh yet but it probably was. It said if she’s already moved in she needs to move out. I suspect she’s there now but both xh and ds refused to tell me. I said, “dd said the van driver told her she met xh’s gf. So she’s in town this weekend?” Why else would the driver have said that today? 
 

I mean I suspect she’s visiting this weekend - not fully moved in. I drive the kids on the days I have them but dd spoke to the driver on campus today. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by heartlikealion

[heartlikealion]

7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t know the statistic but children are at great risk from a non related male.   I worry greatly about your son and a non related female in his home.,it is a very dangerous situation. Both reality and accusations 

I wasn’t worried about ds as much… though I did remind him he needs to wear more than underwear around the house lol I’m always asking him to and he ignores me here 🙄 but he recently stopped coming over (showed up with dad to get dd today — misunderstanding on my part and I picked her up from school by mistake because I didn’t have the kids last weekend but xh said he wanted me to do my makeup day in Nov) and I probably won’t have any visits with him for some time. I did give him Mr Beast chocolate bars I found which he seemed to be happy about. You could only order online til recently. I found them in Walmart. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by heartlikealion

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, heartlikealion said:

can you clarify the last line. I’m not sure I understand. You mean risks between males vs females or relatives vs non relatives or ? 

I didn’t want to fear monger or increase your anxiety so I was vague.  Numbers vary slightly but here’s a bit that I was able to find. 

“In their article “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with both Parents," published in Ethology and Sociobiology, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson note: "If their parents find new partners, children are 40 times more likely than those who live with biological parents to be sexually or physically abused." According to a Missouri-based study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are “nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents.” These are worrying statistics, both disturbing and scary.”

https://www.phillyvoice.com/child-abuse-single-parenting-divorce-marriage-new-partners-advice/amp/

 

 

[heartlikealion]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

I didn’t want to fear monger or increase your anxiety so I was vague.  Numbers vary slightly but here’s a bit that I was able to find. 

“In their article “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with both Parents," published in Ethology and Sociobiology, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson note: "If their parents find new partners, children are 40 times more likely than those who live with biological parents to be sexually or physically abused." According to a Missouri-based study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are “nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents.” These are worrying statistics, both disturbing and scary.”

https://www.phillyvoice.com/child-abuse-single-parenting-divorce-marriage-new-partners-advice/amp/

 

 

That is alarming but I’d rather be aware. I also googled days ago about sexu@l abuse and stumbled on info about it happening between biological siblings. So if it happens with relatives I know my fears with non relatives isn’t so crazy. I immediately thought of Lena Dunham. It’s always upset me she wasn’t shunned more over her actions toward her sister in her memoir. 

[heartlikealion]

He won’t cooperate on the move in and now he’s trying to stop me from scheduling therapy for our daughter. I didn’t know I have to get his consent to schedule it… even though I will be paying 100%. If he won’t budge then I’ll have to bring both topics up in court. 

We have joint legal but I didn’t quite understand what exactly it required. He’s a tie breaker so of course if he says no I need a judge to override it. 

[Harriet Vane]

I would be really surprised if the legal agreement actually specified that he has to *agree* to therapy for a child. 

[heartlikealion]

6 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

I would be really surprised if the legal agreement actually specified that he has to *agree* to therapy for a child. 

I had a discussion with my lawyer about it and he said that xh can stop it as the tie breaker, but then I could override with a judge. Xh is like, "I don't think she needs therapy" and I'm like, "I was told by a counselor that it would be a good idea to help her process all the changes in her life... school, divorce, custody changes etc). He's just going to be difficult and try to stop it from happening at all I think. And it's bad enough that the settlement says I pay 100% of any therapy scheduled by me. 

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, Harriet Vane said:

I would be really surprised if the legal agreement actually specified that he has to *agree* to therapy for a child. 

It sounds like I have the same kind of custody that @heartlikealion’s kids’ dad has.  I have full physical custody, and joint decision making with tie breaking authority in all areas, with medical decision making being the relevant type.  
 

Neither he nor I could make a decision like starting, stopping, or changing a medical treatment like therapy, allergy shots, orthodontia etc . . . without consulting the other.  If we disagreed, my opinion would win unless he took it to court, but I’d need to be able to show that he was informed and allowed to participate in decision making.

 

[heartlikealion]

13 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

It sounds like I have the same kind of custody that @heartlikealion’s kids’ dad has.  I have full physical custody, and joint decision making with tie breaking authority in all areas, with medical decision making being the relevant type.  
 

Neither he nor I could make a decision like starting, stopping, or changing a medical treatment like therapy, allergy shots, orthodontia etc . . . without consulting the other.  If we disagreed, my opinion would win unless he took it to court, but I’d need to be able to show that he was informed and allowed to participate in decision making.

 

Yes, exactly. I do think talk therapy is warranted. Dd may not showcase some of her emotions at dad’s or he brushes them under the rug. 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

Yes, exactly. I do think talk therapy is warranted. Dd may not showcase some of her emotions at dad’s or he brushes them under the rug. 

I think talk therapy, or maybe art therapy like one of my kids does, would probably be wonderful for her.  
 

I am sorry you’re in this situation.  You’re clearly a good parent who has your kids’ best interest at heart, and not having real decision making power is lousy for you.  But I suspect your interpretation of the custody agreement is correct. 

[heartlikealion]

12 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I think talk therapy, or maybe art therapy like one of my kids does, would probably be wonderful for her.  
 

I am sorry you’re in this situation.  You’re clearly a good parent who has your kids’ best interest at heart, and not having real decision making power is lousy for you.  But I suspect your interpretation of the custody agreement is correct. 

She actually offers talk therapy and play therapy. So I don't know exactly what she would do with dd. But since I found her, he will probably select a different therapist or veto all therapy. 

In the past I used to think play therapy sounded great, til I read that there was no evidence it was really beneficial. So I'm kind of indifferent now. I would guess some of play therapy would be using art. I don't know. I did some art with ds when we did group therapy at another place. 

[heartlikealion]

He responded he sees no reason for therapy and referred to her as his fiancé. So I guess they are engaged. He reached out to the school and knows one of the reasons I wanted the counselor to meet with dd was the woman and son moving in. That’s true. I just didn’t elaborate on it. I don’t know exactly what I have to tell him, sigh. 

[fairfarmhand]

5 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

He responded he sees no reason for therapy and referred to her as his fiancé. So I guess they are engaged. He reached out to the school and knows one of the reasons I wanted the counselor to meet with dd was the woman and son moving in. That’s true. I just didn’t elaborate on it. I don’t know exactly what I have to tell him, sigh. 

Can't he see that so many changes so quickly may be difficult for a kid to process? Even if the new gal was marrying him and they would be living together with the benefit of marriage, it is a big change to go from difficult intact family, to divorced family, to step family in such a tremendously short amount of time. 

[Rosie_0801]

Then you'll have to DIY the therapy and make it look like bedtime stories.

[heartlikealion]

16 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Then you'll have to DIY the therapy and make it look like bedtime stories.

I only have her one weeknight each week and then every other weekend so Thursday night-Sun night some weeks. This week I have her Thursday after school until Tuesday morning because Monday is fall break. I went ahead and took Monday off work. I really wanted her to have access to a neutral/professional party but that may take weeks or months if it happens at all. 

The divorce probably felt finalized sooner to them because I haven’t lived with them since ~May 2021. Dad probably started wooing this woman during the separation. Sooner for all I know. 

On the bright side I’m not with him anymore, I’ve got several other things going on in my life that are positive (self improvement stuff etc) and this weekend I’ll celebrate my birthday with dd… and possibly dinner with ds. The agreement says I get the kids 3 hrs on my birthday so I’m inviting ds to dinner with us. 

[Rosie_0801]

I had less access to my daughter than that, and honestly, therapy from the therapist her dad sent her to did less than no good. (Sometimes gaslighting is best practise, apparently.) Even a good therapist has no power to fix these problems.

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Rosie_0801 said:

I had less access to my daughter than that, and honestly, therapy from the therapist her dad sent her to did less than no good. (Sometimes gaslighting is best practise.) Even a good therapist has no power to fix these problems.

That’s true. I don’t expect the therapist to fix something so much as give dd an outlet. 

therapy did so much more against than for me with ds’ therapist during/before divorce. It certainly didn’t help my GAL report. 

[Rosie_0801]

7 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

That’s true. I don’t expect the therapist to fix something so much as give dd an outlet. 

If she needs one, she will find one.
In some ways, it's safer to keep stuff safely swept under the carpet when they're this young. What good does articulation do when you have absolutely no agency?

I know this isn't "proper people who have proper faith in justice and society" advice.

My daughter's perspective on her therapist was that she was a gaslighting jerk, but a good way to get out of school for a few hours a month. She didn't listen to a word the woman said. 

 

Like I said, bedtime stories. Use literature to teach her about healthy and unhealthy relationships. In the end, that's what your daughter really needs: to be dv proofed.

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Rosie_0801 said:

If she needs one, she will find one.
In some ways, it's safer to keep stuff safely swept under the carpet when they're this young. What good does articulation do when you have absolutely no agency?

I know this isn't "proper people who have proper faith in justice and society" advice.

My daughter's perspective on her therapist was that she was a gaslighting jerk, but a good way to get out of school for a few hours a month. She didn't listen to a word the woman said. 

Oh wow sorry. 

I was given a list of recommended providers from someone that is in the field but doesn’t counsel herself. I felt like this sounded like a good fit (could see dd outside of school hours which is hard to find). 

Of course, therapy is always a roll of the dice. I’ve seen several, some of which were pretty useless. I opened up about something traumatic and this therapist said nothing. I thought really?? Aren’t you supposed to say, “sorry to hear that” or “how do you think that affects you” or anything? I dropped her. 

[Rosie_0801]

I had people tell me to get therapy, (which is about helping you make peace with reality) and to keep on fighting, in the same breath. 

I don't think those people understood what therapy is for.

 

You get no say in the short term, but can play the long game. Work on dv proofing, as much as you can. No one can make court orders against literature. 

[Faith-manor]

3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I had people tell me to get therapy, (which is about helping you make peace with reality) and to keep on fighting, in the same breath. 

I don't think those people understood what therapy is for.

 

You get no say in the short term, but can play the long game. Work on dv proofing, as much as you can. No one can make court orders against literature. 

Rosie, you give awesome, wise advice! I dub thee, "The Hive Sage".

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Rosie_0801 said:

I had people tell me to get therapy, (which is about helping you make peace with reality) and to keep on fighting, in the same breath. 

I don't think those people understood what therapy is for.

 

You get no say in the short term, but can play the long game. Work on dv proofing, as much as you can. No one can make court orders against literature. 

I don’t think the 2 are mutually exclusive. I did several different forms of therapy. Some were addressing the past or “parts” (Internal Familt Systems). That did help bring peace, but not necessarily root for me to do nothing vs do something. 

literature is a great idea. Let me know if you have suggestions (you can pm me). 

Dd likes some female YouTubers that generally have level-headed responses to the animated stories they narrate. 

The outlet thing — I just don’t know she will organically find a safe adult. She’s been sharing with a classmate.