The BIG D and its Path of Destruction

[25yearsmlc]

well I let out a breath of relief reading your post....

phew!!

So, remember what my DB coach and MC said about how you stress to the kids what's NOT changing in their lives?

That goes for the "BIG D" talk and also, there's no need to say the word "divorce" sooner than necessary.

And until you both KNOW it is happening and even then,
you can ease them into the adjustments coming...

it's often a good idea to say this is a "time out" first and then say after some time,"we've thought about it and prayed about it and feel more sure it's the time for us to Div"....IF it comes to it.

There are arguments that using "time out" gives them false hope. To that I ask, "1) what's FALSE about hope and, 2) so what?

They need time to process that they'll be with you and

NOT their mom this summer,

they'll be going to the same school (is d older?)

AND live in the same neighborhood with the same friends (son cares about that!)

and who says W cannot move back to the area even if she wants a div?

Your state has custody and states don't like giving that up unless both parties agree. Calif has jurisdiction and won't release it without a lot of scrutiny. No 'automatically going to the mom" in your case.


What will hurt you is what agreement you two had about the move to NM.

But for now all the court wanted was stability.

Your kids are here and you want them to stay and you have a home they're used to. IMO this was a legal no brainer.

Not taking away from your joy/relief,

but the real battle is ahead.

I hope your w wants to be on the same page as you with the conversation


PLEASE DO NOT engage in marriage reviews in that talk

It's about what to tell the kids NOW. Steer it back to that UNLESS she talks about a reconciliation...which isn't likely if she sees that letter

But I do know a WAW who went back to her h
when he filed for custody and got it...oops, not in her plan. She had an OM and the OM didn't want to marry her as he too was married.

But the terms of her h's "accepting her back" were pretty onerous. She agreed, begrudingly, and I think it lasted another 3 years.

Point isn't to discourage you but to point out that

losing your kids IS a motivator to reconcile...but the letter sent was the opposite so make sure IF she reads it....and she might not...you blame the Lawyers.

But Don't expect a recon talk from her at this point. So dont' engage in R talk.

See, if you engage, again, you'll again be forcing her to cement in her mind how right she was to leave and you'll be reminding her AGAIN

of all the reasons she had for leaving you

and how wrong you are to be you.

Keep the focus on the kids NOW.

And don't be surprised if she someday tapes the calls, btw.

Be aware of what you admit. No, I'm not suggesting you lie. I dislike that.

But don't be naive. She's going to know she's at war soon.


Her mother will fuel her fire thanks to the letter IF she knows the contents.


YES BLAME THE LAWYER...

I volunteer on behalf of all of us, to have you blame us! That's why you pay us the big bucks...blame the L, as long as your w doesn't have a gun

IF she reads the letter (and again, some don't)

you tell her you had mentioned those things in your conversation to the L,

but had no idea that it would be documented that way...

this type of mistatement is allowed for the good of your family

and because you WOULD have removed those words if you'd been thinking straight (or come here first)

I just hope a judge deletes it from any findings since it's almost all legally irrelevant to the custody issues.

"Best interests of the children" is the standard. That's determined by

stability of home-includes child care arrangements and work schedule
social support, like family
safety issues, No bad neighborhood or drunk driver driving them, etc
bond between the custodial parent


and whatever else your state says. (IS it California?)


good luck!