SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

"Father and Mother are restrained and enjoined

parent."

What does that mean? Does that mean I'm not allowed to confirm it when the kids ask me about Dad cheating on me? Does that mean I'm forced to lie to them?

I don't believe that telling the truth can be considered "derogatory". I think expounding on what you think of him for cheating, would be. For me, that would be the distinction.

So, I can say yes, he cheated on me. I can't say he's a disgusting perverted sack of shit who cheated on me. Would that be about what you're saying?

I am not a legal professional by any stretch, however, as I read it, it doesn't say you can't confirm the truth. Simply that you can't say he was an asshole-SA/NPD-stupid-piece of shit-mother fucker when you confirm truth. Kids know, and deniability of truth is harmful. There are ways to explain without being demeaning or derogatory, ie with my daughter (13), she asked if he had a girlfriend, I simply said yes (no details, no numbers); with my youngest son (8), I explained the breaking of a vow as being more than a promise and that married people can't live together when vows are continually broken. I never had to explain WHO broke them, he never questioned that it was his father. With the oldest two, they knew, and there was no getting around it.

I could be wrong, so check with more wise people than I, but I think you can confirm truth, just refrain from confirming assholedry.

I don't think any court would force a parent to lie to their children. That sounds ridiculous. Right?

I understand it that neither parent can try to alienate the kids from the other. I've seen you recommend Divorce Poison many times - I haven't read it yet but I assume they cover this issue in there.

I know lots of people here have this in their divorce decrees and I have not seen many that can enforce it when one parent is outright lying to the kids and making stuff up.

Check with your L and their IC but I would say it is OK to give them the truth in an age appropriate manner. Are they of an age where they understand what cheating is?

I've seen you post before that you told them he had broken a promise to you that husbands and wives are not meant to break.

That is not derogatory nor intended to diminish anything - it is the truth in an age appropriate manner.

Lets face it - he is not going to honour this and you already have ample proof of that.

Exactly, Nature_Girl. Exactly.

Yes, PR, that would be ridiculous. However, I have seen that the legal system is biased against protective mothers and turns a blind eye to all but the most severe of physical abuse. Since STBX has non-stop accused me all along of denying him access to the children, I'm very wary of any restriction being put into the final judgment of what I can or cannot say.

And yes, I am aware of how majorly fucking awesome it is that I can use the phrase "final judgment" and it applies to ME!!!!! No, I am not divorced, but I am hopefully "this close" to it! We're just working on the final wording and sorting out the details. Which I had thought we'd have been doing since last year, but oh well, it's happening now, so, whatevs.

What does your L say about the wording?

We meet in a couple of days, so until then I don't know. This is something that was added since the last draft from STBX was crafted and dismissed. Uh, I mean discussed.

SBB, my kids do not know about fidelity/infidelity. They do not know what promises a husband/wife make on their wedding day. They've never been to a wedding, and they've never asked about the wording of wedding vows.

They do know about sex and that husbands & wives have sex with each other. However, they know nothing of betrayal or infidelity or anything like that. This is something completely beyond their imagining.

They do know that this divorce is all my fault because Daddy told them so.

That is standard wording in the parenting agreements in my state. It was explained to me that not only could I not call him a jackass, POS, or "Father of the Year" but that I also could not allow others to do so when the children were present!!

If his actions damage or diminish then you are not expected to lie to cover that up. But refrain from editorial asides.

They do know that this divorce is all my fault because Daddy told them so.

If that is the case, then your stbx has already violated this clause; what are the consequences? If he put this clause in (or even if he didn't), I would push this issue. Fuck him.

As a BS, I've never understood the usefulness of these "clauses", the WS has already broken the marriage "clauses" knowing the consequences, and yet wants to have even more rules that can be broken (with no meaningful consequences, which I suspect will only apply to you anyway).

In your example it would be hard to define "derogatory" as long as you state the truth while using the bare minimum adjectives.

The truth is not a derogatory comment. Unless you say it like this, "That piece of shit mother fucker cheated on me with a crack whore, which is all he is good enough for anyway."

The truth is not a derogatory comment. Unless you say it like this, "That piece of shit mother fucker cheated on me with a crack whore, which is all he is good enough for anyway."

Of course, that is true. I mean that he cheated on me with a crack whore. A drug dealing crack whore who is a convicted felon. True facts About The Crack Whore Drug Dealer That Daddy Cheated On Mommy With, by zefrank. Think that would go over?

I agree with those who point out that any & all clauses are only going to apply to me, anyway. The children flat out told me and their counselor that STBX told them the divorce is my fault AND that the current serious health problems he's experiencing are also my fault due to the divorce & resulting stress. I tell people here how valuable it is to have a children's counselor to verify your story as you go along. So now it's not just the crazy bitch STBXwife who's making shit up, the counselor would also have to be in on the victimizing of STBX as well.

Oh, STBX has been telling the kids all along - and he makes them repeat it back to him - that I'm mean, this is all my fault, I don't like Daddy, I want to get Daddy in trouble, it's my fault he was couch surfing for so long, he would move back home immediately if only I'd let him, and so on. He told the kids they wouldn't be able to celebrate holidays any longer because of the divorce, and that's my fault, too. He tells them he's afraid of me, and that he still doesn't know why the divorce is happening, but he thinks the kids should be careful not to make me mad, lest they get thrown out of the house, too.

But that non-disparaging remarks clause will only apply to me, that's true. Especially since I'm the only one who's shown the ability to abide by clauses & vows & contracts.

he thinks the kids should be careful not to make me mad, lest they get thrown out of the house, too

I think that is the most despicable thing I have ever read, ever. There are no depths too low for him are there? I think the first part of his statement where he says he is afraid of you might be the ONLY wise thing he has ever said. Hold his feet to the legal fire, NG.

FTG.

over and over FTG.

Well, I'd say FTG as well, but since he can't get it up most of the time (even with Viagra), and since he can't keep it up all of the time, I don't know if fucking him is even possible. People who don't think long-term hardcore porn use messes up a man's ability to get an erection need to come talk to me.

I was so worried during the parenting evaluation that his impotence would give a false impression during the psychosexual component (where they hook his dick up to a cuff that measures sexual arousal). I needn't have worried, though. He outright refused to do the psyhchosexual component. No doubt he didn't want it recorded that he gets off on young girls and golden showers. And orally raping sleeping women. I probably can't tell that to the kids either, right? Even though it's true?

I think that it means you are not allowed to run down the other parent in front of your child, e.g. it's one thing to say "yes, daddy had a girlfriend before we got divorced." and "Your daddy is a dirty, lying cheater!!"

In other words, you both have to bite your tongue about the other in front of the children.

As a BS, I've never understood the usefulness of these "clauses", the WS has already broken the marriage "clauses" knowing the consequences, and yet wants to have even more rules that can be broken (with no meaningful consequences, which I suspect will only apply to you anyway).

I asked my L about this when I was REALLY angry and was looking for a fraud loophole. He said the consequences of breaking marriage vows (I'm getting clauses next time - bugger the vows! Not that there is going to be a next time) is the marriage 'contract' ends ie: divorce.

Ironic that divorce contracts are more enforceable than marriage contracts.

I wish fault states were universal and didn't cost the earth to implement.