If you haven’t read Part I and Part II, please read those first.
Disparity.
Dan and Jill went their separate ways. Shortly after moving to Colorado Hannah had her baby and the couple decided that Dan would stay home with the kids as he had before. He stopped looking for work and casually pursued an online graduate degree. After delivery, Hannah also decided she would pursue a graduate degree full-time. The couple moved into Dan’s parent’s house.
About this time Jill also got remarried to Adam. She had been dating Adam for 2 years and the couple had decided it was time to settle down. Both Jill and Adam worked full-time to have a decent place in a neighborhood with ward members and friends for the kids when they were there over the summer.
Jill resented this sequence of events. Dan and Hannah were living solely off Jill’s child support, supporting Hannah in school, and the new baby, while Jill’s kids seemed to not be getting their needs met. Dan wasn’t working and was only casually doing graduate studies at an online university. Jill felt Dan was doing this solely so he didn’t have to work. In the summer the children arrived at Jill’s in worn out shoes and tattered clothes despite Jill’s substantial child support. The kids would complain that dad wouldn’t take them to buy new clothes.
Sadly, an unfortunate dynamic began to develop. Dan had all the power in the system. He wouldn’t keep Jill informed about the kids’ performance in school, or doctor’s visits, or vacations, etc. Dan would often not tell Jill when the kids wouldn’t be home for a Skype call, and wouldn’t help them get online to chat. When they did chat, the computer was in the family room where all could hear the conversation thereby offering no privacy. Jill complained to Dan about this but got little cooperation. Dan was completely uninterested in supporting the kids’ relationship with Jill. By this point Jill was playing a sort of adult version of “mother may I” where the kids seemed to be considered Dan’s and he was sharing them with Jill. Jill felt like she had to beg for everything and that Dan tried to obstruct her relationship with them.
Unfortunately, Jill learned a valuable lesson in the custody battle that a higher income earner will be penalized by paying for both lawyers in many cases. This meant every complaint and possible motion filed could be reduced to a brutal tradeoff between possibly getting relief and having to pay exorbitant lawyer fees. As a result, Jill was finding other ways to express her displeasure and was getting increasingly combative. She would send snarky texts, and was obstinate and uncooperative in return. She rarely missed an opportunity to insult Dan.
But over the course of several years, Jill learned an even more valuable lesson. The hate, vitriol, and fighting were taking a horrible toll on her. Jill started capitulating on every issue that arose believing it was the only way to get peace. Tensions began to ease somewhat. Dan, still having ultimate power, took advantage of Jill’s capitulation and exerted that power regularly. It was only partly Dan’s fault though…the system had set it up this way. As an example, one summer Dan offered to let the kids skip the family reunion and the 28 hours of driving if that’s what the kids wanted. The kids agreed. Then, at the last moment, Dan decided it was more important to “stick to what the court ordered” and he would indeed take the kids at the prescribed time. Jill and Adam’s thoughts on the matter were unsolicited. In another instance, Jill tried to give the kids freedom and agency, something Dan rarely sincerely did. One summer when the oldest child didn’t want to make the drive out to Jill and Adam’s house, Jill told him he could choose. Dan used this opportunity to take Jill back to court and have child support recalculated considering the time their son did not spend with Jill and Adam. This increased Jill’s child support obligation by 15%. The situation is rife with similar examples.
Dan and Hannah have another baby on the way. Hannah finished her Master’s degree but has not obtained employment citing physical and mental health issues. Dan stays home with the kids and teaches English to foreigners in a volunteer capacity. He irregularly pursues a graduate degree at an online school. They still live in Dan’s parent’s house.
Jill and Adam both work at the university as professors. They work hard at their job and restoring a Victorian home they purchased. Between Jill’s child support, loans that paid for Dan’s school, and Adam’s student loans, money is tight.
There is virtually no co-parenting, and no balance of power. The family is as lopsided as it could be. Jill provides all the financial support for Dan and Hannah and their family, and Dan controls the nature of the kids’ relationship with Jill and Adam.
Kids.
As anyone who has ever had anything to do with divorce knows, the kids are the ultimate victims. In this story, while impossible to know the effects on the kids, it appears it has not been insignificant. Dan tends to be overprotective in parenting. The kids don’t go outside and play. They don’t have any friends outside of their cousins with whom they interact with regularly. They have no extracurricular activities. They stay at home and play video games. Jill is the opposite. Jill regularly reminds the kids they can choose whether to come visit, when to go ride their bike (as long as they ask first), and when to go play with friends. She encourages them to have friends at her house, and to try new things like cooking, and sewing, making things, etc.
To the kids, the two households could not be more disparate, making it confusing, scary, and the transitions particularly hard. Of course real co-parenting would be ideal, but despite Jill’s suggestion they do co-parenting counseling, Dan seems to take offense at the suggestion that he isn’t doing it right already. After all, Dan loves the kids and they know they’re loved. Dan sees his job as a parent as making sure the kids know they’re loved and are surrounded by extended family. This and his overprotective parenting style played well for Dan in the custody battle. Jill sees her job as a parent as teaching the kids to be successful adults by providing a loving, authoritative environment while maximizing learning and freedom. This came across as “aloof” to the court during the custody battle. Dan regularly reminds the kids, prior to their summer with Jill, of the “dangerous world,” that “someone could kidnap them,” and otherwise undermining Jill’s parenting strategy. To the kids this creates fear and further enmeshes them with Dan who is perceived as the more safe choice.
The oldest child struggles with anxiety and perpetually seeks to balance the emotions of both Dan and Jill. This child doesn’t want to choose, doesn’t want to offend, and takes it upon himself to balance the emotions of both parents. This child rarely does what HE wants, deciding instead to do whatever will offend his father the least.
The middle child struggles with depression. She has a strong will and opinion about what she wants but feels confined. She would like to go to dad’s or mom’s house when she chooses. But this isn’t possible in the current uncooperative climate between Dan and Jill.
The youngest child struggles with ADHD. He was very young during the divorce and seems to be about 3 years behind emotionally and socially. While intelligent, he appears absent, disconnected, and often resorts to bad behavior out of frustration. Dan and Jill’s marriage was starting to break apart when he was born, and Jill, due to work and later school, never really developed a strong attachment to him. As a result, usually this child wants to be at dad’s house.
Wheat & Tares 
“the system had set it up this way.”
??? The system is setup to respond to the individual circumstances presented. It isn’t like the judge or the court is not interested in finding the truth, or penalizes one spouse over the other. The system doesn’t work that way…although injustice surely occurs.
By the way this is written…Jill needs a better lawyer to protect her rights, as she stays focused on what is best for the kids.
The separation agreement should be written with limitations…such as paying for Dan’s education for a period of time, then after sufficient time to get his career going…he is on his own. Not just open ended payments without any recourse to revisit or recalculate based on changing circumstances. No matter how well or how poor a separation agreement is written…there is no way to predict all that could change or go wrong.
It might be costly…but Jill could get child protective services involved to assess the living situations and give recommendations if the children are better off with more time at Jill and Adam’s, especially if Dan and Hannah are living with parents. Until they get on their own…children would be better off with mom.
“As anyone who has ever had anything to do with divorce knows, the kids are the ultimate victims.”
I’ll take issue with this statement. Many times, the kids are better off because of divorce when one parent is more of a danger to them then the drama that is involved in divorce. In other words…sometimes it is a trade off that is worth the decision. I’ve mentioned this before…you can’t make sweeping statements about all divorce situations. And clearly this hypothetical story is not the typical divorce scenario anyway.
As I’ve stated before…if you have one parent who is bad at parenting…that will be taking place and impacting the kids whether they couple stayed married with one bad parent…or they are divorced and there is one bad parent. Divorce isn’t the problem…the bad parent is the problem. Staying married or getting divorced is just a choice on which is the better route to better take care of the kids.
Jill needs a good lawyer to fight for what is best for the kids.
Bottom line…you figure it out as you go along, and keep fighting for what is best overall and adapt to new situations and handle yourself with enough dignity and charity that your kids have the best chance to grow up learning good things, and hopefully respect and love the parents for handling it best they can.
If Jill starts playing a victim and just accepts she got screwed and there is nothing she can do…she is doing it wrong.
@Heber13
I’ll just say that I respect your view but think you are almost entirely wrong on most of what you’ve said. Courts are regularly biased particularly in family courts. This is pretty widely known. There is severe risk and cost to getting CPS involved. Also widely known since making potentially bogus claims puts the accusing spouse’s integrity in jeopardy. Having a better lawyer doesn’t always get you a better deal but may cost exponentially more. And just because you say an agreement SHOULD be written with limitations doesn’t mean it will be especially if the cost of fighting over every issue is the escalation of the case to another court. Such was the case with Jill. To challenge the agreement meant appealing to a higher court having another trial and costing thousands in addition to the emotional toll.
This wasn’t a typical divorce story. I left the part about mediation out because Dan and Jill tried and failed mediation 3 times. It’s impossible to mediate when one person will only settle for exactly what they want. This divorce story was one in which a judge ruled on the issues after long legal briefings full of Trumpian style drama. The court just wanted to be done with it eventually.
Heart-breaking. And yet not all that unique.
I’ll add that a friend of our family got into a messy custody situation when his ex-wife asked if their teenager could spent every afternoon at her house to babysit her smaller children while she worked. The teen wanted to do it so our friend said yes to be nice. And then the wife went after him for increased child support because she now had the teenager a higher percentage of the time. Our system in broken….
I can see that, MG. Clearly there is more to the story that what is presented. And I’m an optimist (which is not really a good thing, I often find)…I seem to trust that most parties are trying to do the right thing and the system is there to protect the rights of all until I see evidence they do not…when in reality there are biases, as I certainly felt it and was certainly frustrating trying to keep a father’s rights protected. I often heard statements like “most fathers agree to pay and become un-involved with the kids after”…which may be the general case in what they see goes through their courts, but was not my case. And of course, I was the target for dangerous accusations that threatened a lot, for which I had to fight with truth.
Being an optimist doesn’t usually help in court proceedings. That is where a good lawyer should guide the individuals who have never done that before and doesn’t know how the courts work.
I am surprised you are arguing that I am wrong to suggest getting the best lawyer possible is a good idea. It was the #1 thing I was told as I started the process. Seems to make a pretty huge difference to me, although it doesn’t guarantee anything…it’s pretty critical. And when you are presenting in the story there was the open-ended separation agreement to pay for unending education costs…I can’t help but think that reflects on the lawyer drafting the agreement or advising the client to sign such an agreement with those holes in it.
Perhaps there is a lawyer in our midst that can weigh in on if they would ever advise such a thing to their client, or say if they think that is typical to allow such things to slip through the cracks if they were representing Jill.
Just my uninformed opinion, but Jill should be less concerned about the cost of what she needs to do to go through whatever she needs to deal with, and more concerned about how to help her kids. If there is ever a time to fight for something in life…fighting for the kids is the priority, not cost. If she can’t get anywhere with mediation, try arbitration…try everything…exhaust every resource possible. It’s her kids she is fighting for, her life, their future. How much does she want them to be happy? I’m sure there is more to the story, but that is what it makes me think.
Dan should be teaching better values to the kids about being involved in school and activities and away from video games. Dan’s parents should be looking out for the welfare of their grandkids…even getting Jill more involved.
Those are a lot of SHOULDS…reality doesn’t always support those, and there is always more to the story.
What worked for me was to always try to do what I think I should do, and try to hire the best professionals possible to advise me along the way.
While your 3 part story is vague…it sounds like you know what the right answers are and are waiting to reveal them to us all.
@Heber13
I believe Jill felt similarly. She had faith in the system. This is why she thought she could refute lies with evidence and it would mean something. But family court isn’t like a criminal trial. No one really cares (in no-fault divorce) who is wrong or right. They care about resolving the issues. But if one party blows up the airwaves with BS it makes a difference. It’s speaking to the emotions of the court (metaphorically).
Uh, sorry, I should have been more careful. I do agree it is wise to get the best lawyer possible, though I think Jill has likely radically changed her idea of what “the best lawyer” is. I think people tend to seek lawyers that reflect their qualities. Dan’s lawyer was high conflict, high drama, and played the victim card which played into Dan’s narrative. Jill’s lawyer was more mediate and compromise, reply with facts, which was more similar to Jill. So perhaps Jill should have gotten a lawyer like Dan. Chances are the outcome would have been different.
So I apologize if I gave this impression. You should read part I and II agreements again very carefully. Jill was required to pay for Dan’s BS degree, that’s all. She had to take out loans to do it. So in that sense she is still paying for the education, but they’re not unending education costs. Dan has decided to continue to pursue graduate education. While Jill is not directly paying for Dan’s education now, she indirectly pays for it because Dan won’t get a job. This indeed was a poorly written part of the original agreement in part I where a stipulation was made to accommodate someone either working or going to school full-time by not imputing income to them. Jill’s point of view is that Dan is abusing that clause. Jill has brought it to the court’s attention numerous times and it has been dismissed or unacknowledged.
I think it’s easy to have that view from the outside. But in the situation it causes immense pain for Jill and Dan and the kids to engage in the fight. Jill feels that Dan has shown he will go above and beyond in punishing Jill for involving the courts. Not just in the court case, but in the aftermath as he punishes her emotionally. Jill finally decided the emotional, career, mental health, and financial costs outweighed the potential (and highly unlikely) positives. Jill has investigated the possibilities of doing more but has been advised by numerous lawyers the situation is unlikely to fall in her favor. Knowing when to give up is critical, and Jill reached that point.
Hmmm, I’m not sure what is vague? I tried to stick to facts. I also think it’s interesting that in several of the comments on these story parts people have pointed out a bias. I’d be interested to know why. Is it because there is more verbiage and insight devoted to one side? Or is it because secretly most readers cannot believe one person acted in better faith while the other person acted like the monster they are being portrayed to be? If the former, I accept that criticism. If the latter, then I think this is an opportunity for the readers to consider that some parents, spouses, colleagues, etc., either male or female, are just plain awful to be around and struggle with personality traits that make them nearly impossible to work with.
Nevertheless, there is no reveal. This is the end of the story. 😦
MG wrote: [quote]”But family court isn’t like a criminal trial. No one really cares (in no-fault divorce) who is wrong or right. They care about resolving the issues.”[/quote]
I agree with that. I also see they go through so many cases…it becomes a job to them…even if an emotional nightmare and incredibly difficult time for the families involved.
As I talked with lawyers, therapists, court people and judges in getting advice…it wasn’t that they “don’t care” like they are inhuman, but more that they can’t really tell who is telling the truth and who is “blowing up airwaves of BS” because it is “he said/she said.” Nor do they have time or the methods to figure it out.
This is why these matters can be so complicated, because other people only seeing a slice of the story don’t know who to believe. And most people will try to not take sides, even if they try to support their friends…they don’t know if they are getting the whole story, or if they are just getting one side of the story embellished or emotional. Most of the time it isn’t clear and it is hard to believe both aren’t at fault.
So…what if one partner in the marriage is bipolar, or BPD, or narcissistic, or manic depressive, or schizoaffective? I bet if part one of this story included a psychological diagnosis from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist that Dan was bipolar…most people reading the rest of the story would have a different view. But without that diagnosis…Jill just calling him “impossible to deal with” could be that Dan has a problem or it could be that Jill has a problem and can’t deal with Dan. You just don’t know.
The other factor is that my lawyer said that in his experience of doing family law…about 90% of the men he represents claim that their wife is mentally unstable. The wives make similar claims about the husbands and claim their husbands are abusive. Since everyone claims it…well..it gets tuned out in court because obviously the couple wouldn’t be in divorce court if they could agree and resolve problems…so it is par for the course. Even the lawyers really don’t know what to believe…they are just there to represent their client.
MG wrote: [quote]” I think this is an opportunity for the readers to consider that some parents, spouses, colleagues, etc., either male or female, are just plain awful to be around and struggle with personality traits that make them nearly impossible to work with.”[/quote]
Exactly. And if you know Jill, and you’ve witnessed her being taken advantage of and how she has tried to handle herself under impossible situations…well then you have more info based on experience, experience the courts would never have. But the facts of the story itself don’t clearly reveal it that way. It is hard to tell who is the problem and who is doing what to resolve it best for the kids.
And that is the morale of the story. It is extremely difficult to see what is really going on with other people and their marriages. It is easy to look at a couple getting divorced and say, “they should just try harder” or “they are too selfish” or “they should just stick it out and avoid the kids having to go through this mess.”
And do you see how people say that as “they”…not “Dan is the problem” or “Jill is the problem”….because people don’t know, so it is both of them as a couple that are the problem.
All of that supports some of my first comments in the first section of the story…which is…divorce is not the problem. If Dan was “impossible” to deal with, or even had mental or personality disorders, and these come out as the divorce proceedings go on…well then Dan is impossible to be married to also.
So why would we expect Jill to stay married to someone that is impossible to deal with? Divorce may get messy, but living with someone like that is messy too. It may be painful for Jill now going through divorce and people see that…well…doesn’t that just show how painful it is to be married to some people who are impossible to deal with…and why would we think it is better to endure that kind of marriage just because the NT said something about it that is totally out of context for our society now?
Some people are impossible to deal with. And God understands when we have to make tough choices to put up boundaries and divorce them from our lives, even if that leads to difficult court proceedings and expensive legal bills. You do what you have to do.
Unfortunately, if you marry someone who has serious issues and is impossible…there is no winning. You just chose to cope with it in a marriage, or cope with it in a divorce. There is no winning. I think the courts see that…and so they make rulings and move on the the next.
” I also think it’s interesting that in several of the comments on these story parts people have pointed out a bias. I’d be interested to know why.”
I think this happens because in story- telling one expects the narrator to have a bias. The reader, especially in an inherently he-said-she-said situation, automatically goes looking for it.
In no way am I calling into question the truthfulness of the facts as they have been relayed, but it seems pretty obvious there’s a slant toward Jill in this narrative. The stated motivations of the parties give this away. Jill’s efforts are almost always sincere and earnest and done in the best interests of the kids, while most everything Dan does is casual, uncaring, and driven by ulterior motives. Even when Jill resorts to being nasty and insulting to Dan, the consequences of that end up being Dan’s fault. It’s certainly possible this is exactly the way the situation is, but the vast majority of situations are far more nuanced. As a reader, unless the narrator has firsthand knowledge of the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of both Jill and Dan, it definitely feels like Jill is getting every benefit of the doubt while Dan is getting none. Once again, though, it’s possible that’s absolutely the objective truth and any perceived bias is simply because the situation is so horrendously one-sided. I’ve seen such situations. But I do wonder what the story would look like if it were written by someone in Dan’s camp.
I agree with brjones and others who’ve stated that this narrative seems biased. And I know I’m going to get crap for this, but is there a point to this story? Is it just that “Dan=bad” or that “LDS church encourages early/ignorant marriages = bad,” or what? I understand the pain involved in this story, trust me. I just don’t understand why this story is on this blog. Could someone enlighten me?
I have observed a number of young boys in my scout troop go through some variation of this. I do not want to sound harsh or judgmental. This isn’t always the case. But some kids will make their divorced parents pay, with interest, every last injustice heaped upon them. And not often in a way that is exactly fair. The future is theirs and they will eventually prevail, whatever their agenda might turn out to be. In my seer stone I see troubled waters ahead for these kids, the worst might be yet to come.
You can only do the best you can. And get as much help as possible. And pray.
Erin,
My thoughts exactly. You summed it up much better than I could. As an English major, the answer to the “so what?” question so necessary in any type of writing seems missing. Also, it definitely seems out of place on this blog.
I do see the merit in some of the push-back of the above comments. For me though, here is the answer to the “so what?” question: this story details the cancellation and fallout of an LDS temple marriage.
To underline the relevance for us Wheat & Tares readers, could the author have spoken more to the effects of the legal battle on the family’s church activity, or taken a doctrinal/historical approach to LDS Temple marriages/divorces in general? Sure. That this story plays out increasingly as a legal procedural instead of a drama set in living rooms and church foyers is a writing choice bound to disenchant some readers. Fair enough. But its relevance to Mormonism is clearly detailed in Part 1. This story began with two returned missionaries marrying in an LDS temple. Heart-rending to say the least.