Thanks Karen. I'm not low; just mad at myself because it's not good DBing and is purely mischievous.
Well, in other news, I got a letter from W's atty asking for the name of my atty so they can negotiate an agreement of separation. It includes standard boilerplate that the interests of our children are paramounnt and W wants us to maintain an R for them. It asks for my atty to call by April 8 or else she'll have to consult with W about litigation for D or Sep.
I expected this much, and after speaking with a few attorneys at work, I already decided I did not need to retain one (spend $$) yet. My longstanding message to W has been to give me a proposal and I'd look at it, not that I'd negotiate one from the outset. The point of this exercise is to make W take ownewrship of the financial/custody implications and consequences of her ideal world. Again, this is her choice, not mine.
Consequently, I sent a reply by certified mail/return receipt to W's atty stating that for the time being, I was representing myself and would call her prior to April 8 as requested in her letter.
The STRONG advice from my atty friends is that to the extent I handle my own action, I must act professionally as if I were representing my own client. That means logic over emotion. I'll probably give W's atty a call by the end of next week stating simply that it is not my my desire to D or S, maintain the M. However, in light of W's determination to explore a D, I requested an initial proposal, not a negotiation. Pretty much nothing more; nothing less.
