Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Custody and revenge

Part of my discussion with Wife the weekend before last consisted of my trying to position the conversation about our separation so that I could get more time with the boys by agreeing to store some of Wife's piles of useless junk. As I reported back then, this offer on my part (though I never phrased it quite that baldly, I think) caused D to panic. I gave some of her remarks in the post linked above, and my reply was kind of long and pedantic. But in particular, I replied to her question ".... In short, what do you get out of this arrangement besides more responsibility and the pleasure of the boy's company?" as follows:
It is not just the pleasure of their company, delightful as they can be. I am also taking to heart your remarks about the toxicity of Wife's influence, and therefore am trying to reduce the amount of time they spend around Wife to an absolute minimum. I think it may be one of the best long-term services I can do them.

Some time later I re-read that, and it smelled intolerably smug to me. Also, I know that when she gets into a panic, D is particularly intolerant of self-righteousness and self-congratulation. So I sent a follow-on note a while later that ran:

Reflecting on our conversation on the phone, I realize that I was mistaken in something that I wrote. Specifically, I said, with respect to my custody goals, ... [and then I quoted the line immediately above]. But of course my goals have very little to do with suggestions of toxicity, yours or anybody else's. They are, rather, purely vindictive, motivated by a desire for revenge. And as such, they are also likely to get in the way of any rational solution. A rational solution doesn't have to be nice or kind, but it cannot be motivated by passion. (sigh) Oh well.

For what it is worth, D replied to this second statement far more mildly than I had anticipated, a sure sign she was recovering from the alarm she had expressed earlier in the weekend.

I realize you may have written that when you were depressed, but I might reconsider in the light of day. I'm not doubting that there is a measure of vindictiveness in your wish to keep the boys with you. But it's small.The idea that revenge lies at the bottom of your desire for primary custody is absurd. Wife is unable to provide discipline or affirmation. She is passive and dependent. She is often ill and weak, and unable to provide basic supervision or care. She is inconsistent at best, and frankly, an inconsistent parent can be more difficult for a child to understand than a overly harsh parent. Her behavior, particularly towards Son 2, has been inappropriate and sexually charged. She is their mother, and she does love her children. But she has genuine limitations as a caregiver. Hosea, almost none of what we do is "purely" anything. It's always a measure of good motives and less honorable ideas. It's important to recognize your real desire for revenge. But it's even more important to sift through these matters carefully, aware of your strengths and goodness. The research is very clear; even one good parent who truly cares, and loves their children with insight and thoughtfulness, can cancel the deficiences of a poor parent. You are that good parent. It's important that the boys get as much from you and your friends and family as possible.

We agreed to settle on "mixed motives." But sometimes I wish I couldn't see myself so well, because there are times (like this) when I don't much care for what I see ....

1 comment:

  1. D is right again. I've read enough of you and your affections for your sons to know your motive is not purely revenge. Remember the rational arguments for limiting her parenting and stick with those, regardless of your emotions at any particular moment.

    ReplyDelete