For the PO, W's L went in front of a judge with a sworn statement from W that read "I'm scared of Nettles because...". Judge granted a PO that would last for 20 days. At the time the PO was granted, the judge ordered that I appear in court on a specific date during the 20 day time frame to address the PO and determine if it should be extended etc. Basically, this would be my opportunity to defend myself.
Immediately after the judge granted the PO, W's L ask that they forego the court date, what my L called 'tearing it down'. This meant that I didn't have to appear in court and that the PO would expire after 20 days. From what I understand, judge warned that it would be higher bar to get a new PO.
Why did W 'tear it down'? Pessimist says PO was a legal tactic to get me out of the house and set some other temporary orders and she didn't want to go back to court. Optimist says that she had to 'tear it down' and fire L that filed it to proceed with collaborative D process. This process in Texas doesn't allow participants to retain any other outside counsel or have any outstanding court actions against the other person. W says it was a sign of good faith.
I really don't care why it was torn down. The PO has become a central component in my 'book of inspiration' that I use for my meditation on establishing a nonviolent, nonabusive outlook for the day. It is the most powerful item I have, even more than the D lawsuit.
With respect to DBing, I think it comes down to semantics. I think of DBing in the context of the Divorce Remedy book. That is a 7 step process to get to a specific point. I think there are a lot of concepts that will always apply to having a healthy R, but doesn't include everything for a healthy R.
Like you soldier, I too have read a lot. Maybe I need to revisit the DR book.
me: 45 W:45 M 20 years T 22 years S14, S13, S11, D9 BD 2/28/14 D papers served 3/3/14 I moved out 3/15/14 MC start 4/2/14 I moved in 6/2/14 D suit withdrawn 6/30/14
