Thanks ladies and gents. I think things went ok. I just wish that most primal, most blatant of my issues, i.e. my passive/aggressive pouting didn't surface. I really thought those days were behind me. It's like an alcoholic waking up with a drink to his lips.
As for the lawyer thing today, well, no, in my estimation, he is NOT good. So far, everything has gone against my W and of course, in the beginning he said based on her case, there was NO WAY any of this would happen. He said there was NO WAY she would be kept out of a 1st time offenders/pre-trial diversion program and she was. There was NO WAY they would not grant her an extended temporary licence, and instead they took her licence away for 30 days. Every worst case scenario he tells W about comes true and now he wants to go to trial? I am thinking "no contest" is looking pretty good right now. We'll see after the meeting today. We are going to see the evidence, including the video of W's field sobriety test and we'll make a decision about what do to. We just have NO confidence in this lawyer and both from a financial and time standpoint we don't really have a choice but to stick with him now.
We have gotten a second opinion from my BIL who is a VERY good lawyer and he says the same thing as our lawyer, that this SHOULD be an easy case to win but...
On the home-front, I read a few more pages of Passionate Marriage. This is pretty good stuff. I think Mama, you read it, right, or was that NM? Anyway, yes, it is a pretty tough read but I am getting a lot from it. The basic premise is similar to detachment. The idea is that the more "differentiated" we are, or "detached" the closer we are able to be with our partner, in a healthy, good way. The more "enmeshed" we are, or emotionally fused with our partner (codependent) the more we are actually apart from them, in terms of healthy bonding. It gets complicated in a way, but really it just comes down to learning to fully be your own person, able to withstand the emotional flame of another without burning up. I am still only in the first parts of the book, and I suspect he meat of it is still to come, but I am understanding now something that has eluded me for a long time. I always tried to figure out OT's litmus test, how she figured out what behavior was acceptable (not that she's god or anything) and what behavior was in need of correction. I now see the line and am starting to understand more about how to tell good from bad in terms of this theory of differentiation. It is a fine line, and I think VERY easy to misunderstand, which is why OT's advice is often insightful AND sometimes confusing but almost always makes sense when you consider it.
OT, thank you for this recommendation. You knew it would help me understand a lot more about my issues and it surely has, even in the first few pages.
