SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

So my ww has asked that I attend MC with her IC. I'm fine with that because I sincerely dont think I'm telling a one sided story at all. I fucked up in a myriad of ways, and I own that. I'm willing to talk about it. I made sincere efforts to change that even WW admitted were there, but she just couldn't trust, after about 2016. I feel like there's so much she just "doesn't get". For instance, tonight she made the comment that I believe all kinds of things that aren't true (like that she's been talking to AP and those messages were real between him and her). She stated that I dont want to believe her. To my mind, that's insanity. If she cannot see that it's not merely a matter of my volition to believe this or that, then she truly has no empathy or understanding about the level of trauma that infidelity does to a soul. She lied for years and years, swearing on anything that she waa being honest. Now is certainly not merely "me believing what I want to believe." If anything, I believe the story she crafted specifically to make me believe she had rekindled the affair (read my original posts for details). So, that said, I don't mind going to her IC as an MC. If it just fails, then ok, it failed.

But one of the issues of the past month was Instagram names I found hidden under the seat of her car in a new journal (she maintains they weren't hidden, just slid under there, which is possible due to her messy car). She had all of his people in it and a lot of it circled and questioned as to who he was friends with. She maintains it wasn't new, it was related to therapy. She had transcribed all these names from loose leaf paper she has written down during the affair. That's why the new journal making it look new. She was working with her therapist trying to find out and understand where her mind was then, as opposed to caring now and recently having chased down all his contacts like a man she still considered "hers" (nevermind he's married). But she says these names were transcribed from loose leaf that's now coffee stained and crumbled and disgusting, and that's why she did it. Of course the originals that could prove that she threw away. But I guess I'm wondering, what are the chances her IC would tell me the truth on something like that if she became our MC? Would an MC who Is also one partie's IC be bound to lie and cover for the IC patient? Even about something like "did you guys talk about this"? Am I just walking into a trap?

Honestly, seeing her IC as your MC is a conflict of interest IMO.

I had a very good therapist who made it clear in her opinion it was unethical.

I'd attend a session or two and then move from there.

Please be vigilant, your wife is manipulative.

[This message edited by annb at 1:51 PM, Monday, February 20th]

The IC is bound to privacy regulations and can't discuss stuff your WW talked about in therapy, unless your WW signs a release of information. Your WW will specify the amount and type of information that can be disclosed. So, the IC might not specifically lie, but may not be able to provide the information you need.

You could try a joint session of two, but are you ready for MC? MC is to treat the M.

I think it's a good idea to attend, not as MC but as IC, as long as your W signs a release that allows her IC to share anything from an IC session with you - and with a provision that the IC will call you if your W changes or cancels the release.

Also, using her IC as MC, with the release, may work, if you start with the A and your W's screw-ups, not with any pre-A issues. If you deal with the A first, a lot of those pre-A 'issues' will become moot, so it makes no sense to deal with them first.

*****

ETA: In theory, your IC owes a a duty to you; your W's IC owes a duty to her; and your MC owes a duty to your M. Some ICs and MCs can navigate the dual role of MC & IC to one partner, if there's a release that allows the MC to share anything from IC sessions in MC, but they're rare.

Without such a release, the C has to create boundaries in their head, and that's really difficult.

My W signed a release, so anything she said in IC was fair game for MC. Besides, she was (past tense) the problem, and I was basically an observer and fact-checker for more IC for her during our 'MC'. Also, we started with all A, all the time, and even when that stopped, I could bring up the A whenever I felt like it and my concern got immediate attention.

Attending a session or 2 could work if you used it to level-set, that is, to make sure your W told a version of the truth you can sign on to.

But if she's sold her IC a bill of goods, this may be a trap - perhaps to batter you emotionally into taking responsibility for your W's A.

If your W really wants to R, a joint session will probably help. If she's maneuvering for a D, it will hurt. Calling the C to find out the goals and method of the joint session is a good idea. I'd write down the goals so that you can complain to your state's licensing authority if you get blind-sided.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 9:19 PM, Wednesday, February 22nd]

She lied for years and years, swearing on anything that she waa being honest. Now is certainly not merely "me believing what I want to believe." If anything, I believe the story she crafted specifically to make me believe she had rekindled the affair (read my original posts for details). So, that said, I don't mind going to her IC as an MC. If it just fails, then ok, it failed.

I actually did go back and re-read your original post, and to be honest, I think it might be eye-opening if you were to do the same. You have no reason, given the history with her, to believe ANYTHING she says. The accusation that you 'only believe what you want to believe' is offensive under these circumstances.

Am I just walking into a trap?

/
Yeah. Pretty much. Can you think of any other reason why both your WW and her IC would want you to attend other than to try and maneuver you into making some sort of change to your demeanor? I can't.

I don't think I'd be willing to meet with her therapist as marriage counseling. I might be willing to sit in for a session or two of IC in a support position as long as the focus was my WS's recovery, but not MC. For MC, you're better off screening therapists and looking for one who really understands infidelity and who holds the WS accountable. I've got a post on my profile regarding the "unmet needs" fallacy you might want to read. Just click the little person icon in the upper righthand corner of this post. A bad MC can make things so much worse by validating the WS's rationalizations.

In this case, I hate to be so suspicious, but I'd be plenty curious about what those two have been cooking up. Is there a blame-shift going on? If there is, the only way you'll find out is to go and hear what's being said. I do think that if I walked into an ambush though, my next stop would be my lawyer's office. You've got a long marriage, but you're still a young guy. You've got a lot of life left in front of you, and right now, your WW needs to be serious as a heart attack about her OWN recovery. If she's focusing on whatever she thinks you're doing wrong, she's not nearly busy enough with her own bullshit which is still so fresh. She is not a child. She's an adult and if she's not getting the work done, if she's lollygagging with a "buddy" therapist instead of one who's challenging her to improve herself, she's not working. Ultimately, the responsibility for making progress is on her. This isn't a case of psychosis where she thinks she's a turnip or something. She has her faculties and if she wants to R, she needs to be using them.

What CT said.

Also: Sounds like a set-up for the "Unmet Needs" line of defense.

If you go, beware of this, and if you get this, you know she isn't doing any real work.

Yeah. Pretty much. Can you think of any other reason why both your WW and her IC would want you to attend other than to try and maneuver you into making some sort of change to your demeanor? I can't.

I have a close friend who works as a therapist and she said sometimes she will invite a partner or a parent (whomever is the subject of a lot of the patient's sessions) to attend to get a better gage on the actual dynamic of the relationship and whether the story she is receiving "checks out", so to speak. Most therapists are aware that the story that they are getting from a patient is one-sided and if they have reason to believe that their patient is not a "reliable narrator", it can be helpful to the patient for the therapist to have someone who knows the patient well to fill in some blanks or give some further perspective for them.

I obviously have no idea if this is what is going on here. It could very well be a trap. It could be that your wife has one strategy/gameplan in mind and the therapist has another. I really don't know.

I agree with CT that this does not sound like an ideal or healthy setup for MC. I also highly doubt that your wife is a good candidate for MC right now as she's still very much foggy and/or currently (actively) Wayward at the moment. That said, if it were me, I'd probably be too curious to decline an invite to attend for a session or two in order to provide colour for the therapist in order to further your wife's pursuit of IC. I'm not someone that is easily manipulated though and I have a lot of experience holding my own in situations of conflict. If you do decide to go, please be prepared to walk-out if it turns into a lets gang-up on 1345Marine session.

Just going to echo that no way in hell should you be seeing her IC as a MC. That's a clear conflict of interest on the therapist's part. And considering the fact that her IC appears to be doing jack shit to help your wife's myriad of problems, I don't know why you would want to give a single additional red cent to this person.

I also don't think you should be in any kind of counseling with someone who is still cheating on and lying to you. All she's going to do is use a counseling session-- particularly if you go through with seeing her therapist-- is use it as a forum to manipulate and gaslight you.

Count me in as one who says "No way" to seeing her IC as the MC. If you're presence is being requested to get a more rounded picture of your WW's portrayal of events...sure. But seeing the IC as the MC is 100% a conflict of interest.

Thank you everyone for your input. After reading responses I think I may have misunderstood. Perhaps it's not MC that I'm being asked to go for. Maybe it is that outside perspective as a part of IC. I intend to go and find out anyway. Like has been said, if it turns into something that just feels "off", well I know how to leave. I like to believe her therapist is solid, as she was recommended by a counselor we both trust and have used for MC in the past once the drug addiction came out because she had a practice focus on addiction. All this stuff is so foreign, navigating therapists and lawyers and all this stuff you never really planned in life. Plus it's expensive too. I'm upset by the adultery for so so many reasons, but one reason is the practical disruption and costs for me and my children that her choices created. Yes, the personal agony of betrayal is the deepest pain I've ever felt. But as you keep walking all the real world stuff like how much it all costs and the destruction of the practical matters of life start really weighing you down. Life is so unsettled, I really miss the simplicity of "Go to work, pay my bills,raise my kids, know what to expect". And I know my children are struggling with the instability as well despite my best efforts to keep things as normal as possible for them.

I regret agreeing to do MC with my WW's IC. I had my own IC but when WW agreed to work toward R her IC recommended that we both do IC and MC through the same therapist to avoid the need for them to coordinate care. WW ruled out working with a man so that left her IC.

It didn't bother me much at the time because I was so bent on doing whatever was necessary for R. In retrospect it was foolish. Her IC had a strict confidentiality policy so nothing was shared between IC and MC sessions. At the time that seemed like a good thing.

In retrospect, my WW had months of IC to gaslight and set the stage for MC. She was always the therapist's primary focus. The priorities were WW, the marriage, and then me. I recall useful things that I realized in just a couple of months with the help of my original IC, but almost nothing from our shared IC/MC from almost a year. The emphasis for me was to accept my part of the blame for the condition of our marriage that supposedly led to the A, accept what happened, and move on.

This was twenty years ago and her IC was a classic psychoanalyst. It was all about childhood and family history, etc. Not saying that's not important, but there was no acknowledgement of the trauma of infidelity or understanding of the need for full disclosure. "Very few adults go through life with just one sexual partner these days," she once told me, "you have to accept it and move on." "You know what goes on in the bedroom between two adults," was another.

Part of what my WW liked about that psychologist at the time was that she was very kind and gentle. WW couldn't handle the slightest bit of judgement of her or her actions at the time. Some of what the therapist did may have been because of that and it was only later that she really pushed back on my WW, who actually turned to me for assurance that she wasn't a selfish and demanding "queen bee" like the therapist said.

By that time the damage was done. I'd already bought into the shared blame and rug sweeping as the price of R. There were no deprogramming sessions.

My FWW's current therapist is trained in dealing with trauma and if she does MC insists that it be on a 100% transparency basis. Maybe that could work. But I would never go into MC with an IC who is sworn to keep a WW's secrets.

Thank you everyone for your input. After reading responses I think I may have misunderstood. Perhaps it's not MC that I'm being asked to go for. Maybe it is that outside perspective as a part of IC. I intend to go and find out anyway.

Call in advance, talk to counselor one on one, and ask what the specific purpose and objective of the session will be. Then you can make a decision about whether it's in your interest to go.

[This message edited by BluerThanBlue at 7:25 PM, Wednesday, February 22nd]