SurvivingInfidelity.com Forum Archives

Ashland13 posted 8/3/2014 11:53 AM

In winter it will be three long, drawn out years that this process has taken. Much of it I will blame on Perv's perpetual state of NPD and the other part I will blame on my constant need for truth above all else in my own life.

So that's the background, I guess, for this post.

The legal papers are flowing back and forth and there is one section where I feel kind of like a school teacher of small kids, "no, no, no", wagging my finger, shaking my head.

This particular paragraph I just can't seem to leave as it is, with my name on it and signed to boot...

It speaks of each parent. Are you ready? Here is the way it stands: "If either party shall ever get an SO, said person or persons shall never, ever interfere in the communiation between Father and Mother of children named herein."

My problem is that it's worded as if OW does not exist and Perv's other papers try to hide her, as well. The other papers I care less about because I don't have to sign them and my name isn't on them.

I guess deep down in my wish bone, (Muppet movie line, sorry) I want it to be kind of forced that she does exist. I suspect they knew in court because of how the Bailiff and typing lady were so interested-acting and the two lawyers are well-known for adultery cases, esp his...

So I just am thinking of this lately as I review the papers again, wrestling with myself about just signing it to get done vs pushing it. For now, I'm going to keep pushing it, because otherwise there is more that goes against my core beliefs at that man's hands.

I wonder what anyone else would do who's come across this or anything. My gut tells me that his lawyer is going to work very hard to leave it there-he's the drafter of the papers, which was a stupid a.. idea to begin with, if you ask me, because the Defense lawyer himself lies.

Oh, that's a different/same thing. I was thinking about this because the Defense lawyer-Perv's-is his family's lawyer too...there are 8 brothers and 6 sisters. The guy continues to get the brothers off things like DUI and shortens their punishments, it just would not be a nice life for me to be this type of person...so much knowledge this man (lawyer) has about the wrong people do and here he is earning his living off of it. Just weird.

Chippednotbroken posted 8/3/2014 12:59 PM

What do you want it to say?
I guess I don't know much about the situation but it can't name her. He might not be with her that much longer and this is meant to be a lifetime document that you don't need to change. I maybe missing the problem but I don't get it. Seems standard.
And just because it bothered me a little, being a criminal defense attorney doesn't make you a bad person, nobody likes a defense attorney till they need one.
Have you talked to your attorney about that part of the decree? I just don't know what you would change it to.

Ashland13 posted 8/3/2014 13:10 PM

Thanks, Chipped and Broken.

I was only saying that I don't think I would be cut out to be a criminal defense atty - he's probably a pretty good one, even, I just couldn't do it myself. I don't think he is a bad person, no, and in fact he's an officer of the court. Yes, he has to earn a living too, and is probably pretty smart for knowing the red flags for what can be stated and altered. Sure.

That's a good question. I don't know what I want it to say exactly, but I know as it stands it makes me feel ...crappy. I don't need it to name her but hiding what he did in this way doesn't agree with me. If it said nothing in this area it would be fine, or if it didn't say "SO" it would be fine, too...it's like telling the court and judge he doesn't have anybody when he does, at least in my tired brain.

"People involved in children's homes in future" or something I could tolerate

I'm not "after her" or anything, I don't care about her actually, she isn't a factor in my life anymore, even after all she stole from me.

I just care about signing papers that are more honest, somehow. Yes, it's in my lawyers "inbox".

trying_2_recover posted 8/3/2014 13:26 PM

Maybe it's the reference to and SO that is off putting? Maybe have it worded that no third party will ever interfere?

Chippednotbroken posted 8/3/2014 13:32 PM

I would just do the 3rd party. I have something like that in mine and truthfully I ignored it. Some of those things are just words and I don't feel like there is any enforcing it. They are going to do what they want to do.

Ashland13 posted 8/3/2014 13:32 PM

That's it!

Thank you.

peridot posted 8/3/2014 18:14 PM

I would use third party and not name her because they will probably not be together forever. You don't want to end up back in court trying to change this years down the road. Leave it generic but use third party instead of SO, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc.

Ashland13 posted 8/3/2014 18:25 PM

It is not her personally, believe it or not.

I want to not sign a paper further hiding what he did.

And I don't want her name on any papers that mine is on. Now or later.

debbysbaby posted 8/3/2014 18:27 PM

I can see where something about that might rub you wrong simply because of the adultery, but I have something very similar to it in my papers. That's just standard wording and you might be very glad to have it in there at some point.

yearsofpain25 posted 8/4/2014 09:38 AM

I can see what you are saying Ash. I don't think you are out to get the OW. I think you are pointing your issues back to the one who has caused all the damage and continues to do so.

So rather than analyzing what the verbiage is re OW, lets take a look at what I think you are trying to say here.

Your stbx has tried keeping his relationship with OW a secret through the entire process for several reasons. One of which is to gain sympathy from from every facet from the judge to the stenographer. It's one more thing on top of a huge pile that your stbx is using as a tool to hide what he's really up to.

You're issue is not with the verbiage itself, or OW, but what NPD stbx has been doing to you by hiding his relationship with OW in all facets both legal and otherwise.

Is that it? Or did I miss the point?

yop