NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/freel/84

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 5.9 KB | 101 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VIX.COM!VIXIE
X-Btw: vix.com is also gw.home.vix.com and vixie.sf.ca.us
X-Mts: smtp
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:43:08 -0800
Sender:       "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange" <[e-mail]>
From:         Paul A Vixie <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: GAL advice needed
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Thu,
              21 Jan 93 10:00:27 EST." <[e-mail]>
Lines: 86

Mark,

> Thanks for your thoughts. It's sort of what I knew to be true but had to
> hear it from someone else. Problem is, the details of the actual breakdown
> and separation are black and white. It's a pure case of one person abusing
> another and intentionally taking advantage of the system to do so (put a
> restraining order on me, move 50 miles away.) To explain the circumstance
> does require a bit of information. So far my answers take up 5 or 6 typed
> pages.

*Especially* when it is a clear case of one person abusing another, you must
not be the one to "point this out" to the GAL, or the judge.  These people
are keen to form their own opinions, and even more keen to discount yours.
(After all, if your brain worked well, they figure you would not have married
this person or would not be divorcing them now -- one way or another you are
wandering around with your foot figuratively in a bucket, at least in their
eyes.)  If you can come up with a fairly short summary (2 to 3 single-spaced
pages, or 6 or 7 in the double-spaced legal format) of your position that does
not contain full-strength conclusions, then your position as abuse-e ought to
be fairly clear to the GAL -- and to the judge, if you have one who actually
pays attention to all the stuff in the folder he gets handed to him when your
case is called.

No matter how "right" you are, a long ("complete") evaluation of your ex-spouse
will sound like whining.  Don't do it.  Rest assured that your ex-spouse *will*
do it; she will tell her attorney that you are a monster (chances are good that
she actually believes it, and that she will be able to convince her attorney of
it), and you will be accused of things that you never even thought of or
thought possible.  You will be hard pressed to keep your arguments and
rebuttals and defenses against her attorney's trash short; you can at least
start out by keeping your initial evaluation of your situation and your ex-
spouse as short and non-victim-oriented as possible.  After your case gets
going you might find yourself in the enviable position of having your declar-
ations paid attention to or even looked forward to by the court people, as they
look for a voice of reason in the morass created by your ex-spouse.

Keep things as positive as possible.  You may not *want* to go on with your
life right now; you could either want to prove to the world that the divorce
was not your fault (as Annie pointed out in her recent article), or you could
want revenge, or you could want vindication, or you could want reconciliation;
however, the inevitable facts are probably that you will have to go on with
your life in a way that does the best possible thing for your children.  Aim
all of your written and spoken statements toward that end.  Be seen, to the
extent that a father can be seen at all in one of these custody battles, as a
force for "let's get on with our lives" rather than "let's duke it out in this
shithole until the last drop of blood has been spilt".  You may not have much
of a chance -- I want to prepare you for that: you will mostly likely lose, at
least at first -- but if you have a chance it is by taking the high road and
staying on it long enough to be seen by the authorities as the voice of reason.

> As far as giving negative conclusions about her character, one of the
> questions asks for specifically that. Naturally I can write a book in
> response to that question; but I'm unsure what to write in answer to the
> question about what her good traits are. At this time, I can honestly find
> nothing good to say about the person who is attempting to strip me of my
> fatherhood.  Should I list her good traits anyway, such as they used to be?

Don't write a book about negative conclusions.  As I said in my previous
message, you should keep it short and make it as objective and non-acusatory
as possible, and you should get an uninvolved third party to proof-read for
that.

I can understand not having anything good to say about her.  But just as you
have to artificially say "less" than you "feel" about her negative attributes,
you must find a way to say "more" than you "feel" about her positive ones.  As
before, an uninvolved third party might be able to help here.  You are probably
feeling that all the "reasons you married her" were lies on her part or
stupidity and irrationality and temporary insanity on your part; however, once
you get on with your life and stop being hurt by her (I am hoping that some day
you will no longer be hurt by her, anyway), you will probably be able to see
that some of the stuff you liked about her "in the old days" never completely
went away.  What I suggest for the purpose of this document is that you try to
imagine yourself *having* gone on with your life; try to see your present, and
your to-be-ex-spouse's present actions and attitudes, as though they had
happened a long time ago.  This may help you unlock some of the positive things
about her that you could still see your way to grudgingly admitting to yourself
and to the GAL still might be present.

Seeing the present through the eyes of the future is a good metaphor for
anything involving children, even in intact families.  It's not simple,
though.  I don't know how to tell you to go about it, I only know that
for me, it lets me behave (and to some limited extent, to feel) in ways
that make a better future for everyone (especially my son, but including
myself).

Paul