I have a question---asked on behalf of my future son-in-law. He's divorced, but custody issues are not yet concrete.
His marriage was brief. He deployed before his son was born, then returned from Afghanistan to a multi-cheating wife (of the Craigslist-ad variety). They separated immediately.
Parental alienation has been a HUGE part of the equation.
This is a guy I've known since he was a kid. He is sweet---but, since his deployment, depressed. He has been prescribed meds for this---and needs them. When he takes them, he copes very well with the traumas he's experienced.
His divorce attorney believes that there is a strong case for him to gain custody--at least half time. The conditions in which his child lives are abysmal, making full custody realistic.
His divorce attorney is kind of an idiot. He offhandedly mentioned that it might be "look better to the judge" if SIL stopped taking his meds. This good---albeit depressed --man who returned from war to find his life HERE imploded--is now white-knuckling without meds, at HUGE personal cost.
Never mind that it's not SAFE to abruptly stop meds.
With meds, he can work constructively toward recovery from the traumas he's experienced, and be a great father. NO ONE would EVER suggest that a father returning from war to an intact family stop his meds---but this lawyer's thinking aloud is, IMO, reducing the odds of gaining custody of this little boy who NEEDS a stable home.
Can you please share your experiences with me? It seems to me that the need for antidepressants would not be even a blip on a judge's radar. If I were a judge--and obviously I'm not---I'd be far more concerned about noncompliance with a prescribed regimen. Am I completely off the mark?