Illinois Divorce Lawyer Blog

Through the years, I have been involved with divorce and custody cases that involved elements of unhealthy narcissism. My friend and colleague Billy Eddy's book, Splitting speaks in detail of the difficulties dealing with litigants with NPD and BPD. I am often consulted on cases involving BPD and NPD in custody cases.

Psychologists are fascinated by narcissists, both why they are attractive to healthy partners despite on some level recognizing their dysfunction, and because they embody so many paradoxes. Extreme narcissists inevitably reveal their true nature to those around them and are eventually rejected. So why don't healthy people (and the narcissists) learn?

The charming narcissist:

To find out, social psychologist Mitja Back and university colleagues decided to investigate (Back et al., 2010). They asked 73 freshman students who had never met before to introduce themselves to the rest of the class, one by one. Each person was rated by all the others on how likable they were as well as being videotaped for later analysis. After the session all the students filled out some questionnaires, amongst which was an assessment of narcissistic personality traits.

Here are the findings:

1. Narcissists were more popular at first site. Self-rated narcissists were initially more liked by others than non-narcissists.

2. Participants liked narcissists' sense of entitlement most. Of the four aspects of narcissism they studied, leadership/authority, self-admiration/self-absorption, arrogance/superiority and entitlement/exploitativeness it was the last of these that most predicted liking.

3. Narcissists look, sound and move better. The reason narcissists were popular is because they used more charming facial expressions, a more confident speaking tone, wore more fashionable clothes, had more trendy haircuts and were funnier.

Naturally all these effects only hold true in the short-term. Narcissists are usually soon found out and shunned since few people will put up with a self-absorbed, authoritarian, arrogant, exploitative partner.

Divorcing a narcissist, or person with traits of BPD, creates enormous challenges, especially in disputed custody cases. My practice has dealt with these challenges for many years, and if you have questions about divorcing someone with NPD or BPD, please contact my office.

Now that 2010 has arrived people who have been considering filing for divorce are starting to take action. Once the decision is made to file for divorce, an important decision must also be made as to how the divorce will be conducted.

Are you looking for a high cost, high conflict divorce? Well, these kinds of divorces are easy to engineer. They require anger, retribution, and a desire to burn through money without regard to future consequences.

Are you looking for a better, less costly, lower stress collaborative experience? Then consider an initial consultation with my office to discuss my approach to cooperative divorce and collaborative practice.

In cooperative and collaborative divorce practice, the traditional approach of bargaining from a specific position, backed by threats of litigation and court hearings, is replaced by an approach that settles cases mindfully, practically, and respectfully. The approach meets the needs of both parties and the children, and still involves legal counsel, but eliminates the threat or fear of high conflict court hearings at any stage.

This cooperative process is based on a process in which both parties and their attorneys agree that the attorneys will not go to court, except for the final prove up of the case. The key ingredient of cooperative divorce is that the negotiation between the parties takes place in four-way meetings where both parties and their attorneys are present.

The cooperative approach to divorce is based on three principles:

• An agreement not to go to court, except to obtain guidance from the judge (pretrial conferences) and to "prove up" the agreements at the end of the case.
• An open exchange of financial information by both spouses.
• A solution that takes into account the highest needs and priorities of each divorcing parent and the children.

The key element of this process is a commitment by the parties to work toward a negotiated settlement in a structured, non-adversarial setting that puts a premium on cooperation and cost savings, rather than resorting to high cost, high stress litigation.

Some cases need the court system. Cases involving domestic violence, dissipation of marital assets, and other emergency matters will require immediate court action and the intervention of the judge. My firm is very aggressive when court litigation is required. However, for many divorcing parents, the cooperative process is a cutting edge and cost saving approach to achieving personal parenting and financial goals, while at the same time preserving the emotional health of the parties and the children.

Taking Daughter To Church May Violate Court Order
Dad Says Half-Jewish Child Should Be Exposed To Christianity, Too
by Chicago Tribune Reporter Mike Puccinell at http://bit.ly/8CLYdi

A compelling story about a Father and his child has appeared in Illinois media this week. The story concerns a Christian Dad who is in a high conflict divorce and custody case with his Jewish wife.

"I have been ordered by a judge not to expose my daughter to anything non-Judaism," Joseph Reyes said. "But I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish Rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours. I can't think of anything more Jewish than that."

Last month, Judge Edward Jordan issued a temporary restraining order specifically barring Reyes from exposing his daughter to any religion other than Judaism.It happened after Reyes had his daughter baptized without first consulting his estranged wife.

There is a lesson here to be learned, but the lesson has little to do with comparative religious traditions, or the best interest of a child with respect to her religious training. The lesson has to do with the nature of court orders, and why managing adverse court orders is a very important consideration in divorce and custody cases.

Many litigants do not like certain court orders. Some Dads are ordered to pay child support that is excessive, especially after a father has an adverse job change. Some parenting orders may no longer meet the best interests of children. If you have in place a court order that is inappropriate, is the answer to willfully violate it, in order to prove a point? If a parent is paying too much statutory child support based on their income, is it permissible to simply start paying less? The answer, of course, is no.

Your attorney can meet with you and plan a strategy to modify any court order that is legally inappropriate to your current circumstances. Why use "self help," and risk the sanctions of the court, and why put yourself in a position, as I believe Mr. Reyes is about to do, to test the limits of the judge's patience and resolve? Mr. Reyes appears willing to place himself in contempt of the court, which may place him in the Cook County lockup for civil contempt.

Mr. Reyes should respectfully request that the last court order be modified to allow him to attend his place of worship of choice with his daughter. If you have a court order that is adversely affecting you, contact an attorney today, and go about seeking change and justice the right way.

Jail is no place for a good and loving Dad to sit.

Some of my clients are aware that the funds provided for initial consultations with my firm go into a nonprofit foundation account (www.karunainstitute.org) for the benefit of a children's orphanage in Ukraine, among other causes. I am presently coordinating with Life2Orphans.org on an Odessa, Ukraine orphanage project to assist children in the orphanage with HIV.

I saw today, via Twitter, an article that was both inspirational and educational. Aside from helping kids affected by MTCT HIV, it is helpful to understand that with modern care, these kids can be as healthy and "adoptable" as any child, and they deserve a better life than that afforded by the detski dom. Here is the article:

Who Could Possibly Want HIV+ Children?
Feature, HIV + Children — By Lisa on January 12, 2010 at 7:00 am

I wrote an interesting letter yesterday. An orphanage caring for HIV+ children recently partnered with an adoption agency that was happy to work with them and eager to find families for these little ones. But then something changed. The orphanage director began to doubt the interest of the American families. Why would anybody want an HIV+ child? What motive could they possibly have? In the end, the orphanage director concluded that these children were going to be used for “experimental purposes” and would not allow them to be adopted.

I was given the opportunity to write a letter explaining why we had adopted HIV+ children and how they are treated in our family. I also included a photo of my girls with two of their sisters.

As you can imagine, I was glad for the opportunity to help, but I was also very sobered. As challenging as it is to live with the stigma of HIV in American, it pales in comparison with the stigma in much of the world. Children infected with HIV are abandoned to die because their families have no hope for them. Adults refuse to seek medical help for fear of people finding out. They would rather die than be shamed and rejected.

This concern also reflects upon the lack of hope children and adults all over the world experience when they are infected with HIV. The orphanage director could not imagine an abundant, healthy life for the orphans in her care.

So who could possibly want these children? Who would take the time to complete the paperwork, pay the fees, fly halfway around the world, and then spend the rest of their lives committed to this child? I would, and so would an increasing number of adoptive parents. In America there is nothing that can hold these children back from living life to the fullest. There is excellent medical care and nutrition to meet their physical needs. There are families to nurture them, educational options to develop their minds, and limitless opportunities for them.

http://www.growninmyheart.com/who-could-possibly-want-hiv-children

I was reading a social networking site that had a thread on Borderline Personality Disorder. It can be very helpful to read the DSM for the diagnostic criteria for BPD, but it can be also quite insightful to read the stories of people affected by a relationship or marriage with someone with BPD. Here are a few examples, below:

"Get out as fast as you can, don't look back.The only reason to stay with a BPDer is if you are a parent who has a child with the disorder. I was married to someone with BPD. The horrors.

The non-BP has been sucker punched. When you are in a relationship with a BPD you both share a private, intense world of ups and downs. 3 AM screaming matches, stomping, acting out, and in some cases, self harm and violence. This brings you both together in a co dependency. Each time there is a blow up, the couple is drawn closer together in the resolution phase, when the BPDers devaluation episode subsides. This codependency is insidious. I call it being sucker punched."

"I dated a borderline for 2 years, the 1st few months were great and it was mostly downhill from there. BPD is an illness that prevents the person from truly loving anyone, not even their parents, their spouse or their children. They are often self abusive and are a physical and mental threat to themselves and to those who love them the most. BPD is often passed from parent to child. My advice to you if you want the loving husband, children and family thing is to cut your losses and move on. I know it is easier said than done but for your own mental health you need to do it. I hear and fully understand your reasoning and thinking as to not wanting to leave someone because they are ill, I felt the same way. The one thing a borderline fears the most is abandonment yet the truth is they almost always end up abandoning the relationship themselves within 2 years. Often the people that are willing to stick with a person with BPD are usually suffering with their own co-dependency issues. I wish I could say be patient with them and love them unconditionally and they will get better but it is just not the case. About the time you think things are getting better their illness will cause them to destroy any progress that has been made and sabotage that progress. I can not imagine the personal hell a borderline lives in but have witnessed it and had a taste of it by loving someone with this illness. Now knowing and understanding what BPD is I will always feel strongly for anyone with this illness but will never let myself fall in love with someone that suffers it. Suffering with BPD makes for a long hard lonely life for the one who suffers with it and equally as hard for those that love them."

If you feel you are in a marriage with someone with the traits of BPD, please see my friend Randi Kreger's site, www.BPDCentral.com. If you are in a failing marriage with BPD issues, please feel free to contact my firm to set up an initial consultation.

By BRADLEY BROOKS, Associated Press Writer Bradley Brooks, Associated Press

RIO DE JANEIRO – A New Jersey father has his hopes pinned on Brazil's chief justice, praying he will regain custody of his son after a five-year court battle in time to spend the holidays with the boy — in the United States.

David Goldman also said he would allow 9-year-old Sean's Brazilian relatives to visit with his son if he wins the case.

"It's my hope we'll have ... the holidays and New Year's and a very long, happy, healed life as father and son — at home," Goldman told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Sunday. "My whole family and Sean's whole family have been waiting, agonizing for over five years to be reunited with their grandson, with their cousin, with their nephew, with my son."

Late Sunday, the Supreme Court said in an Internet statement that Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes would rule Monday on appeals made by Goldman and Brazil's attorney general seeking to lift a stay on a lower court's order that Sean be handed over to his father..

Goldman launched his case in U.S. and Brazilian courts after Sean was brought by his mother in 2004 to her native Brazil, where she then divorced Goldman and remarried. She died last year in childbirth, and the boy has lived with his stepfather since.

The lawyer for the boy's Brazilian family offered to negotiate a settlement, and the family also invited Goldman to spend Christmas with them. Goldman did not say whether he would accept the invitation if the case was not resolved this week.

Asked if Sean's Brazilian family would be able to visit the boy, Goldman said yes. "I will not do to them what they've done to Sean and me," he said.

The case has affected diplomatic ties between Brazil and the U.S., reaching talks between President Barack Obama and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. A U.S. senator, reacting to the case, has blocked the renewal of a $2.75 billion trade deal that would lift tariffs on some Brazilian exports.

The U.S. State Department pressed for the boy to be returned. But a Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Thursday stayed a lower court decision ordering Sean to be turned over to his father.

The Brazilian family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, told the AP he would like to see a negotiated settlement, saying he wanted to end the damage being done to Sean and to U.S.-Brazil relations.

"We're raising the white flag and saying: 'Let's get together, let's talk. We're the adults, we have responsibilities, so let's start to have a constructive conversation,'" Tostes said.

Goldman, however, was in no mood to negotiate.

"This isn't about a shared custody — I'm his dad, I'm his only parent," Goldman said. "This isn't a custody case — it's an abduction case."

After many disappointments, Goldman said he was taking nothing for granted.

"Until my son and I are on a plane together and those wheels are up, I'll be no less determined and no less hopeful for that day to come," he said.

He said he can't wait to make up for lost time.

"I have five years of love to give him, so he's going to get an extraordinary amount," Goldman said. "With love and patience, we will heal."

Michael Doherty of the Children's Rights Council of Illinois was kind enough to write me this weekend to say that his members have been following Illinois Divorce Law Blog. Here is an excellent article about shared parenting in which the Children's Rights Council was quoted:

Sharing Custody By: Sarah Rupp http://www.crisp-india.org/articles/147.html

"Do what's best for the kids."

Everyone says that during a divorce. But determining "what's best" often becomes a mud-slinging tug-of-war where no one wins - especially the children.

Shared parenting plans attempt to diffuse the fighting, putting the children first. Both parents get joint legal and physical custody. The terms "custodial parent" and "visiting parent" no longer apply.

Supporters say joint custody helps fight the "fading father" syndrome, keeping dads emotionally and financially involved.

It makes sense. In a perfect world, children should grow up in a loving, supportive environment with both parents. And in a perfect world, both parents should share equal responsibilities, eradicating "traditional" gender roles where the father's the sole breadwinner and the mother's the sole caregiver.

But in the real world of divorce, the rational, level-headed thinking that joint custody often requires doesn't always seem possible. And that's the biggest barrier.

It's not easy for an ex-husband to drop the kids off at the home of his former wife, who he says lives with a new boyfriend every other month. It's equally difficult for an ex-wife to encourage her kids to see their dad after he walked out on them. And one woman complains that shared parenting keeps her from moving up in her career, since she can't take her dream job across the country without giving up her son. She questions adhering to the rules when, in her opinion, the father ignores the children and doesn't pay any child support.

But David Luevy, an attorney and president of the Children's Rights Council, based in Washington D.C., says that, overall, shared parenting works better than sole custody arrangements.The Children's Rights Council suggests the following custody schedule:

Age Recommended contact with both parents
Under 1 year Part of each day
Ages 1 to 2 Every other day
Ages 2 to 5 Not more than two days w/out seeing parents
Ages 5 to 9 Alternate weeks; "off duty" parent getting a mid-week visitation
Over 9 Alternate weeks

Luevy says studies from the American Psychological Association show that children tend to fare better emotionally when both parents are involved, minimizing the lasting effects of divorce. And fathers who share custody are also more likely to pay child support.

Judith Seltzer at the University of Wisconsin in Madison says that after studying more than 13,000 divorced families, she found that joint custody keeps fathers more involved.
Joint Custody

Advantages:

* Both parents usually stay more involved.
* Child support is fully paid more often.
* Parents share more responsibilities and raise the child together.

Disadvantages:

* It doesn't work as well if the parents don't live in the same area.
* It's ineffective if the parents continue to fight. Children want their parents to get along and divorce is supposed to solve that problem.
* Kids may complain about feeling "unsettled" since they have to switch houses so often.
* It can be a difficult arrangement to uphold when the child becomes a teenager. Luevy says that parents need to be flexible and work with the child to work out a schedule.

The only time shared parenting doesn't work better than other custody arrangements is if the parents continue to fight, says Luevy. Arguing, crying and all the other emotional baggage that's hard to shed hurts the children more than anything else. (Of course, joint custody isn't possible if one of the parents is abusive or unfit in other ways.)

With that said, should fighting parents even attempt 50/50 shared parenting arrangements?

Luevy says yes.

"Even the most contentious parents can make joint custody work with highly structured visitation schedules," he says. "A flexible schedule will not work."

That's why the Children's Rights Council promotes using "drop off points," a neutral setting to transfer the kids, so that parents don't have to see or talk to each other.

"Community centers, churches and day cares make excellent neutral settings," he says.

Joint custody is now the preferred and presumed custody arrangement in 26 states and the District of Columbia. And more than one out of five divorces has shared parenting arrangements, says a 1997 report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

"Considering the fact that for hundreds and hundreds of years, sole custody has been the only acceptable custody arrangement, it's remarkable how quickly shared parenting has caught on," says Luevy.

I spoke with one of the committee leaders from the Illinois Legislature's Family Law Committee today on the progress being made to reform Illinois' antiquated custody and support statutes.

I have been writing for years on the need for Illinois to join the 21st century, and revise its Dissolution of Marriage Act to reflect statutes that exist in other states that create, for example, a presumption of joint legal and physical custody.

A legal presumption of joint custody acts to establish both parents as presumptively fit to share the parenting of their children. Presently in Illinois, mothers and fathers fight over who will "win" the custody of the child(ren). States that have enacted presumptive joint custody take the fight out of these cases. These states, of course, leave open the possibility that one parent may challenge the fitness of the other to have shared custody, but at the every least, unlike Illinois, these states do not presume that one parent is to be a winner, and the other a loser, in the custody war.

What I'm hearing is that there are changes being considered to the way child support will be calculated in Illinois, with both parent's incomes being factored into the support equation. I have not heard much regarding a wholesale change to the custody statutes, and trust that consideration is being given to amending, or tossing altogether, these wrongheaded custody statutes that have engendered so much litigation and bitterness in Illinois.

Good and loving parents should share the parenting of their children, post-divorce.

One of my valued clients, who happens to be an engineer by training and otherwise an interesting and dynamic person, made a comment at court today. She had been watching other cases taking place at the courthouse, and marveled at the amount of controversy over objectively small issues. She stated to me and a colleague that "I simply won't come to court unless the issue in dispute is over a substantial amount of money."

Now, my colleague and I have both worked hard to keep court costs for clients as low as possible; both of us practice this cost effective way. We both agreed that it pains us as legal professionals to see people exhaust precious family funds on wrongheaded legal disputes.

What my client was speaking to was this universal concern that litigants should be mindful of the costs of litigation, and that many disputes are amenable to resolution without the costs, uncertainties, and stresses of litigation. This same philosophy of cost saving and collaboration underlies the movement toward collaborative and cooperative divorce.

If you have a family law concern, be ready to embrace the cutting edge strategies that a few of us in the legal profession have embraced in the right cases. Collaboration. Mediation. Alternative dispute resolution. Sure, some cases need to be aggressively litigated, and some matters need a judge's active intervention. I am a trial lawyer by training, and know how to win a war. But many other cases and clients need only to find a more balanced, cost effective and practical means to solve their more minor or resolvable disputes.

What did Abraham Lincoln once say? "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

I was involved in a child custody matter recently that was becoming difficult to settle, for a number of reasons. I represented the Dad in the case. One of the reasons for the impasse was the wife's refusal to consider joint custody. I had prepared a detailed Joint Parenting Agreement that was a healthy and proper plan for the parents and the children of the marriage, It was rejected.

Here's what occurred. Shortly before trial, I took the wife's deposition. In the deposition, I began to inquire as to her reasons for refusing a joint parenting agreement, pointing out to her examples as to how she and my client had communicated and worked together on recent medical and school issues involving the children.

What developed in the deposition was an appreciation that she had never accurately understood what joint custody in Illinois meant. She told me that she refused to share the time 50/50 with the children with her then-husband, but she offered that she was completely OK with making him a part of every decision in the children's lives She affirmed that he is a good dad, and should be equally involved in the major decisions.

Definition: Joint custody of a child requires both parents to cooperate in deciding major issues affecting their children, including, but not limited to, major medical decisions, religious training, and education. Sometimes, social decisions such as sports, camps, can be included in this definition.

The moral of the story, it seems, is that it helps that the parties understand at the outset of the case what is meant by joint and sole custody in Illinois, before a dispute develops over the idea. Wife''s longtime misunderstanding lead to a lack of progress on settlement. Once she was assured of what the concept of joint custody was, she quickly agreed to the joint parenting plan. The parties had already agreed on a parenting schedule. The case settled, and the cost and stress of a trial over legal custody was avoided.

Many professionals that work with divorce and custody cases see cases of Parental Alienation. Parental alienation can be defined as a social dynamic, generally occurring due to divorce, when a child expresses unjustified hatred or unreasonably strong dislike of a "target" parent, making access by the rejected parent difficult or impossible.

Dr. Amy Baker is a nationally recognized expert in parent child relationships, especially children of divorce, parental alienation syndrome, and emotional abuse of children. Her book, pictured here, provides answers to many critical questions surrounding parental alienation, and is a valuable resource at understanding this highly damaging process.

One definition: The alienation is triggered by an alienating parent. In its worst and most pathological forms, the alienating parent acts to align the children to his or her side and together, with the children, campaign to destroy their relationship with the targeted parent. For the campaign to work, the obsessed alienator enmeshes the children's personalities and beliefs into their own.

Part of practicing family law involves, at least in my opinion, a measure of compassion for and understanding of each client's family system, and the family system and financial changes that a divorce will visit upon a family. Each family is different; each case is also unique. My firm applies creative approaches to each case, with a goal of shaping outcomes that are best for the client and the family as a whole.

In helping families adapt to the changes that a conflicted divorce brings, there are resources available that can provide a measure of comfort and coaching.

Rosalind Sedacca's 'How Do I Tell the Kids about the DIVORCE?' is a thoughtful template for parents looking for coaching in how to help their children manage the change that divorce brings to a family. Even if you don’t purchase her guidebook, http://www.howdoitellthekids.com, you need to make sure you share these essential messages with your kids again and again so that they never forget:

1. You are, and always will be, loved by Mom and Dad.

2. You are, and will continue to be, safe.

3. You are not to blame for any of this.

4. Mom and Dad will still always be your Mom and Dad.

5. This is about change, not about blame

6. Everything is going to be okay.