Experience with a third party supervisor?

[anxiousmom]

In coming up with an appropriate offer for exBPDh, I think it is clear to everyone (except him) that it will include a third party supervisor watching him for enough time, with good feedback, for him to graduate to another step toward unsupervised visits. It is an absolute must for me to have a supervisor who has experience with mental health issues, but just wondering if you guys have had any good or bad experiences with third party supervisors?

ExH has never had our child on his own for any meaningful length of time, so the idea of a third party supervisor there for a few hours at a time, and then there if we give him, say, 8 hour days, surely the supervisor will be able to track whether ex rises to the occasion. History would say he is not capable of rising to the occasion, especially when you're talking about 2 full days back to back. He's never done it on his own and has NO idea what it takes.

Thoughts?

[hhaw]

I don't think the ex should be asking for overnight extended visits.  Not with his history.   

My experience with supervised visitation was either a facility where there are levels of supervision..... recording sound, and actions, or not.

Supervision performed by a family member or friend, which is a huge PITA.  Not everyone can arrange their schedule, and some people are just puppets for the PD, and not reliable in any case.

We had a company arranged to send out supervisors who would pick up the kids, take them to their Grandparent's farm, or home for 5 or so hours, and BE in the childrens' space.  The PDs couldn't bring themselves to finish the paperwork, which I sent over and over again.  MIL asked for the paperwork, once, with too little time to complete it. 

Honestly, you have to insist on safeguards.  This is tough, bc you don't want your child to have awkward odd visits, but you can't allow unsafe situations either.  The awkward visit is preferable, IME.

I found the third party retired Judge mediator wasn't very helpful, wanted me to put my kids in harms way, and was more focused on her unblemished record of resolving 100% of cases for our Judge, than anything else. 

She was also aware there were problems with the In Laws mental health, and not fooling herself about it, which was terrifying to me.  I'm so glad the PDs walked out on that mediation, bc the mediator wasn't in my childrens' corner.  Not one little bit.  I found everyone in the room, including my own attorney, was pushing me to put my kids in harms way. 

Hold your ground.   Continue referencing your child's best interests, and calmly advocating for him. 

[anxiousmom]

hhaw,

It's like you're describing my situation entirely. The mediator seemed to "get" it to some extent but told me she thought the judge would give him a ramp up to get him to what he is asking for, which is mind blowing. Except mine didn't walk out of mediation, so I don't have that going for me.

His L made a comment to my L that his client doesn't think a supervisor is necessary, doesn't want it, and doesn't want to pay for it.  Then when my L pushed back, he said I should be prepared to pay half.

I too have noticed my attorney shift from being prepared to litigate to, in some ways, pressure me to settle, although there's been no movement yet on what any sort of settlement would look like.

All I want is a safety net for a reasonable amount of time, considering the circumstances, and i feel like I'm fighting that battle on my own.

I did speak with a third party supervisor I want to use. She is a social worker, and recommended by the mediator so I'm hoping that holds some clout with his L. My discussion with her gave me confidence that she would be able to adequately assess whether he was capable, or at least provide detailed enough reports that we'd know if he wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing. She's also extremely expensive, so we'll see how they react. HIs L suggested a bailiff who apparently also does that on the side. If I wanted an adult babysitter, I'd ask for one.

[openskyblue]

I too have noticed my attorney shift from being prepared to litigate to, in some ways, pressure me to settle, although there's been no movement yet on what any sort of settlement would look like.

I've been through this with my lawyer. Most lawyers don't want to go to court. They want to settle. So they're always angling towards that. Under "normal" circumstances, mediation, negotiation, working towards a settlement makes sense. With a PD involved, the typical legal settlement  instincts and training of most lawyers fails people like you and me.

I found, especially at the end, that even my experienced, tough-skinned lawyer was getting worn out by my ex's 180 reversals, left-field demands. He started advising me to try this and just go for that. That was when I realized that I had to guide him and be insistent on my bottom line — or we would tinker around the edges until there was nothing left and I'd agreed to a bunch of stuff I never wanted.

I'm with hhaw: Why are you agreeing to unsupervised visits at all? Your husband has documented, serious mental illness, has guns in the house, has never taken a full parental care role. This doesn't sound like a safe situation for your kids. If he wants to be a parent so badly (and I mean a fully functioning all hands on deck parent), let him fight for that in court.

Don't let your lawyer back you into corners you don't want to be in just because he/she is worn out by a PD. 

[hhaw]

My experience really is that everyone, including our own attorneys, will hammer on the only rational litigant in the room once they've figured out the PD will never ever ever be reasonable.

Everyone just wants out.  They have other cases.  They don't want to litigate and lose.  They aren't always clear on our situation, bc they have so many clients, and every attorney believes every client lies, and blows things out of proportion.

This last bit is particularly harmful to us when we're the stoic kind.... and I believe many of us are.  I never overstated ANYTHING ever, not once, which turns out to be a character flaw in court, who knew?

The PDs are overstating all the time, and most courts tend to split the baby.... that tends to not work out well for us, IME.

The thing is.... we have to state only what we can prove, and that's problematic as well, IME.

How do the PDs get so far with zero evidence and facts.... I think they're just very dramatic, get people's emotions hooked in by making broad statements that tend to make anyone listening angry... things that are easy to believe.....
alienating, overprotective, obstructionist, bitter zealot parent trying to keep the other parent from being a "good dad" yada yada.

People can understand the PD's whining complaints, IME, bc they're common, rational, easy to understand complaints of any divorce.

OUR story, however, is about nonsensical PD behaviors that make us look unhinged if we just tell it like it happened, IME. 

We have to prove our case, and craft our case according to the evidence, which is laborious compared to the PD leveling whiny complaints people can make sense of, IME. 

It's maddening, bc parents... ALL parents, are supposed to care for their children, protect them, and want the best for them.

Regular folks have to make a very difficult leap to believe a parent would ever DO these things, IME.

SOmetimes it gets turned into the question....

"What did you DO to the PD to make him DO those things to you?"

Even more maddening, but we have to treat the stupid questions as our opportunity to educate the audience.  Stay calm. Keep pulling out evidence and documents.  Keep advocating calmly for our children, and staying level, bc the PD wants us to lose our cool.  THAT's the thing that completely muddies the water, IME.