Need quick answer re: GAL

[SMinNJ]

I bet that if you really wanted to you could probably come up with concrete examples yourself of instances that fall within what this evaluator is saying...to help dad understand.

If the evaluator is correct about dad, then you will likely see the same problems arising when your own child reaches adolescence, therefore its in everyone's best interest for dad to try to get a handle on this.

First, here are the links to the backstory, if anyone was interested...

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=386751 (Parenting Time suspended (long))

This is the thread in which the long drawn out story was evolved... also where I was appropriately slapped for my bad netiquette.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=386965 (I'll try this again)
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=390977 (Co-parenting Issues)
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=390866 (Unreimbursed Medial/Dental Issues)

I understand exactly what the evaluator is saying and so does dad - We just both believe that his behavior is due not to narcissism, but rather is evidence of his religious faith. A faith that believes in absolute truth and that non-believers aren't making it to heaven doesn't fit well into a modern psychological profile... and no, I'm not condemning anyone here...

Child has proclaimed belief in God since before the divorce. She's gone to a Christian school since she was 6 - mom's decision because of the poor quality of public education where she lived, where she has affirmed herself as a Christian repeatedly over the years. When she does or behaves in a way that is not Christ-like, dad shows her her errors, because that is what she has professed to believe. He knows that you can't force someone to be a Christian, and likewise, you can't hold a non-believer to a believer's standards - he thought his daughter was a believer, so he did hold her to those standards. Now that he knows she's not, he won't hold her to those standards and thus will parent her differently.

Most of the descriptors of NPD as applied to my husband are explained by a religious world view... other items, like antisocial thinking, reflect directly on the fact that he sees God as the ultimate authority, not government or himself... still others, like his preference to stand, reflect the medical fact that he has herniated discs in his back (caused by former father-in-law) and it is painful for him to sit in traditional furniture... after working 8 hours during the day, with a round trip two hour commute, he simply cannot stand to sit ... mom has expressed intimidation from the way he slowly pulls into a poorly graded parking lot - I think sometimes she thinks the way he breathes is wrong ...

So, I appreciate the advice and your input. We know the court wants to hear nothing about religion, so he's probably destined to be labeled as a narcissist regardless...

 

[SMinNJ]

Quick update on the conference call...

Judge came on, expressed his sadness on the fact that he hoped that there would be agreement so there didn't need to be a hearing. He stated that the hearing would surround itself around the input of the psych evaluator and how to properly reunify the child, so he'd like the legal parties to talk and see how to make this happen without the hearing.

So, the judge went away and the legal minds (mom's counsel, GAL, and dad) talked for a while. So, they agreed for individual counseling for dad and child. Mom's counsel said, well, the evaluator's report says counseling won't work for dad, and the GAL told her that he doesn't recall seeing that as part of the report, and since dad is anxious to go to counseling, shouldn't we give it a try? They agree that the goal is to get dad and child into joint counseling as soon as possible. They agree to let the child's counselor decide how soon to start both the joint counseling and contact between dad and child. They also agree to include in the consent order that reunification is the primary goal, as the judge said. They also agreed to set deadlines for when counselors and appointments need to be in place (one of dad's requests). I don't think they mentioned dad and mom in counseling, which dad thinks is very important, but he knows deep down that mom won't stick with it anyway (she has backed out in the past every time they start), so he figured that was a pipe dream anyway.

So, basically what they agreed to was dad's recommendations minus parent counseling and a visitation schedule. They also agreed to enter each parties' position into the consent order so that it can be used if necessary in the future.

Dad, while wanting more, walked away reasonably happy, since everyone is going to at least work towards getting him and the child back together, which has been the exact opposite of what they have indicated in the past.

Thanks for listening.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

A person cannot make changes in themselves without know WHAT it is that drives someone else nuts.

The person I share a house with cannot stand to see clutter in the main living area. So, I have two choices: I can make an effort to NOT leave anything around in the main living area, or listen to complaining. How do I know this? We COMMUNICATED about it.

The same needs to happen with this dad and child. The child needs to understand the importance of being able to verbalize instances. Hard to apologize if you really doesn't understand what happened.

 

[wileybunch]

ETA: I wrote this post before your update above, just hadn't posted it yet.
Glad to hear the judge is working toward reunification. It sounds like the conference went as well as can be expected.

Geez, this is a relationship. Relationships can have issues and need some help, but separating the parent and child pretty much indefinitely was a really crappy thing to have happen.
***
OP, do you think Dad can be overly controlling and dictatorial? Like previous poster said, you can probably think of examples of how he does this so he can understand where he's tweaked his daughter's feelings. (That said .... WTF? Since when do dads have to come under so much scrutiny? If all dads that were bossy, dictatorial, and opinionated were blocked from seeing their kids, there'd be a whole lot of fatherless kids! )

This statement bothered me, though:

"He states that dad projects all of his anger onto the child and has a strong ability to have antisocial thinking and behavior."

Is this true?

OK, back to you wondering if the GAL meant she shared the entire eval w/daughter. It sounds like others think she didn't and that you probably think GAL didn't after all, but who did? Because I look at these 2 quotes from you and maybe I'm too suspicious, but how is it a 13yo lays down a gauntlet of no counseling with Dad until HE'S undergone "therapy" and that just happens to jive with Mom's feelings. How does child even know dad needs "therapy."

Eval's recommendations were that dad and child should each enter into counseling. Mom's position is that this should happen and that since the prognosis for an adult with narcissism is low, she will not consent to any parenting time or communication between child and dad.

... and ...

Child says doesn't want any contact with dad until after he's undergone therapy. She also wnats her on counseling. Until she develops trust w/a counselor, she wants no counseling with dad, and that the apology, etc. need to come before any reinstatement of contact.

P.S. If I were Dad, I would stop being Pro Se *pronto*. I don't think it's working well for him and see his position, rights, etc. being eroded, ie. getting worse instead of better as he's been going through court.

 

[casa]

Judge came on, expressed his sadness on the fact that he hoped that there would be agreement so there didn't need to be a hearing. He stated that the hearing would surround itself around the input of the psych evaluator and how to properly reunify the child, so he'd like the legal parties to talk and see how to make this happen without the hearing.

So, the judge went away and the legal minds (mom's counsel, GAL, and dad) talked for a while. So, they agreed for individual counseling for dad and child. Mom's counsel said, well, the evaluator's report says counseling won't work for dad, and the GAL told her that he doesn't recall seeing that as part of the report, and since dad is anxious to go to counseling, shouldn't we give it a try? They agree that the goal is to get dad and child into joint counseling as soon as possible. They agree to let the child's counselor decide how soon to start both the joint counseling and contact between dad and child. They also agree to include in the consent order that reunification is the primary goal, as the judge said. They also agreed to set deadlines for when counselors and appointments need to be in place (one of dad's requests). I don't think they mentioned dad and mom in counseling, which dad thinks is very important, but he knows deep down that mom won't stick with it anyway (she has backed out in the past every time they start), so he figured that was a pipe dream anyway.

So, basically what they agreed to was dad's recommendations minus parent counseling and a visitation schedule. They also agreed to enter each parties' position into the consent order so that it can be used if necessary in the future.

Dad, while wanting more, walked away reasonably happy, since everyone is going to at least work towards getting him and the child back together, which has been the exact opposite of what they have indicated in the past.

Thanks for listening.

Perfect. I knew once the counseling was part of the order/Judge's decision, and given a timeline of completion...things will FINALLY start moving towards the reunification.

It's happening exactly as I said it would.

Re; the NPD traits: We've discussed that in depth. As long as Dad speaks/acts according to an 'Authority' (religous or otherwise) other than the Court ...he will be viewed as believing he is superior to the authority of the courts. So, like I said, he needs to tone that WAY DOWN. HIS Religion should not be affecting or dividing his child - especially since child has voiced their dislike of such.

 

[SMinNJ]

ETA: I wrote this post before your update above, just hadn't posted it yet.
Glad to hear the judge is working toward reunification. It sounds like the conference went as well as can be expected.

Geez, this is a relationship. Relationships can have issues and need some help, but separating the parent and child pretty much indefinitely was a really crappy thing to have happen.
***
OP, do you think Dad can be overly controlling and dictatorial? Like previous poster said, you can probably think of examples of how he does this so he can understand where he's tweaked his daughter's feelings. (That said .... WTF? Since when do dads have to come under so much scrutiny? If all dads that were bossy, dictatorial, and opinionated were blocked from seeing their kids, there'd be a whole lot of fatherless kids! ).

No, I don't think he is overly controlling and dictatorial... some of the things he has taught his daughter, in regards to interpersonal relationships - their little buzz words or his favorite catch phrases - show that is not either of those two things. One of his favorites is "It's alright to be wrong, it's just not alright to stay that way." A great thing to teach a kid, I think. He doesn't believe in punishments or rewards - the punishment or reward of behaving in a good or bad way is simply the knowledge that you have done right or wrong. He doesn't hit, or yell. In the eval session with dad, she did acknowledge that he doesn't yell, but she can still tell if he's disappointed in what she's done. Dad told her that he's sorry that it upsets her if he's disappointed in her behavior, but he can't stop that if she behaves poorly - that's what parenting is about. Christianity in general holds, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." He loves his daughter, even when she misbehaves.

This statement bothered me, though:

"He states that dad projects all of his anger onto the child and has a strong ability to have antisocial thinking and behavior."

Is this true?.

Frankly, the first part is something I don't get. As I understand projection, in a psychological sense, it means that if you are angry about a situation or at a person, you expect those you are projecting onto to also feel that way. So, in a way, I can see situations in which this happens, which I think is natural for everyone to do... if you're angry at someone, you expect everyone should see and empathize with you. However, and I don't want to throw this back on the child, I think that this is something that she may have pulled onto herself... she knows there is a rift on his side of the family, and she's been forced into the middle. The rift happened during the last custody struggle, and she knew when she came back to him after eight months what had happened, or at least some of it. She had her own struggles on how her grandparents could have behaved the way they did. She took his anger as her own, at least with him. The same with her mom - she took the differences in the way they do things and, while with him, placed the blame on mom... mom doesn't do this, she makes me uncomfortable when she does this. Dad doesn't talk about what he thinks mom does wrong, but the glaring differences in their lifestyles speak volumes to the child. So, she sees what would have made him angry in these situations, and she reflects back that she agrees with him... so he once again is confirmed in his belief that he knows her, because she is just like him... Yet in other situations, like a disagreement at church, she was able to tell him immediately, Dad, you were wrong, and he was right... she came up with a coherent argument defending her position, and dad followed her advice, because she was in fact correct. She didn't reflect his anger at all, in fact, she deflected it positively.

Antisocial behavior? In a healthy sense ... His faith says that God is the ultimate authority, not man, so he doesn't worry a whole lot about what other people say or think about him. He doesn't break the law, has never been arrested, although he does engage in organized protests. He works for the state government, as a tax auditor, so he is very good at learning and applying the law, on the side of the government . He has many friends at work, including his direct supervisor and the one above that, both of whom he socializes with. He has always held leadership positions at church, including church trustee and head of the men's ministry. For his court motions, he has been able to gather certifications from over 40 people describing him as friendly, nurturing, and loving. Granted, I know that serial killers are often the last suspected too ... but it still says something. Mom's certifications always give hearsay about how awful dad is - dad's always say how wonderful he is...

OK, back to you wondering if the GAL meant she shared the entire eval w/daughter. It sounds like others think she didn't and that you probably think GAL didn't after all, but who did? Because I look at these 2 quotes from you and maybe I'm too suspicious, but how is it a 13yo lays down a gauntlet of no counseling with Dad until HE'S undergone "therapy" and that just happens to jive with Mom's feelings. How does child even know dad needs "therapy.".

Clearly, this whole process has been shared with the child, although not by dad, and this is what worries us... her opinion is being clouded by others who don't like dad, who have told dad to move on with his life and leave the child alone, and he is not there to defend himself.

P.S. If I were Dad, I would stop being Pro Se *pronto*. I don't think it's working well for him and see his position, rights, etc. being eroded, ie. getting worse instead of better as he's been going through court.

This is actually the most prosperous version... in the past, visitation has been suspended, and he's asked for psych evals, and no one would agree to do them. No one would agree to facilitate joint counseling for he and his daughter, so he had to take from his EOW time to do so - and that ended when their counselor changed her hours and mom wouldn't provide the child for counseling outside of their time together. In the past, his attorneys have lost him his right to take his child to the doctor for routine medical care, to restrict him so that he had to take his daughter to any extracurricular activity or birthday party she had scheduled, regardless of their plans together, to reduce each visitation by 1/2 hour because of a new neutral pickup point that happened to be 1/2 block from mom's house but 3 miles from dad's, and to gain no makeup time after eight months of blocked visitation. This is actually doing good for him

 

[CJane]

I understand exactly what the evaluator is saying and so does dad - We just both believe that his behavior is due not to narcissism, but rather is evidence of his religious faith. A faith that believes in absolute truth and that non-believers aren't making it to heaven doesn't fit well into a modern psychological profile... and no, I'm not condemning anyone here...

Child has proclaimed belief in God since before the divorce. She's gone to a Christian school since she was 6 - mom's decision because of the poor quality of public education where she lived, where she has affirmed herself as a Christian repeatedly over the years. When she does or behaves in a way that is not Christ-like, dad shows her her errors, because that is what she has professed to believe. He knows that you can't force someone to be a Christian, and likewise, you can't hold a non-believer to a believer's standards - he thought his daughter was a believer, so he did hold her to those standards. Now that he knows she's not, he won't hold her to those standards and thus will parent her differently.

Can you see, or more importantly, can DAD see that HIM so obviously believing that 'non-believers' will go to hell and purporting that in his home and presumably to his CHILD, and then HER being a 'non-believer' ... might cause some stress? Some thought on the part of the child that she's not good enough for dad? That dad doesn't 'value' her or her opinions because they don't fit into his scope of belief?

I thought it was hard on my kids to hear that I'M going to hell. But if they were told (through words or actions) that THEY were going to hell? Come on!

My daughter has told me more than once that even though she was baptized at 30 days old because that was her father's belief at the time (he used to be Lutheran) that she got REBaptized in his new faith because it was the only way she could think of to prove to him that she believes in God. Not because SHE thought it was an important expression of faith, but because she needed to PROVE to him that she met his standards. That's not exactly healthy.

 

[SMinNJ]

Perfect. I knew once the counseling was part of the order/Judge's decision, and given a timeline of completion...things will FINALLY start moving towards the reunification.

It's happening exactly as I said it would.

Re; the NPD traits: We've discussed that in depth. As long as Dad speaks/acts according to an 'Authority' (religous or otherwise) other than the Court ...he will be viewed as believing he is superior to the authority of the courts. So, like I said, he needs to tone that WAY DOWN. HIS Religion should not be affecting or dividing his child - especially since child has voiced their dislike of such.

I'm trying to figure out the most respectful way to say this... I understand that you are speaking legally. However, if someone's child was lying in front of a freight train, about to be run over, the parent would understandably be expected to run and rescue them. This is what a person with a born-again faith understands - that all of humanity is in fact lying under a freight train, about to run them down for all of eternity, and that we each have to do something about it. One of our preachers talked once about how we can love our children straight to hell... by not teaching them the truth. My husband loves his daughter, and thus has always made sure that he taught her the truth. She responded positively to it... she professed belief. He parented her thus... Her mother sends her to a Christian school that believes the same thing he does... they teach her thus... Her mother doesn't live that life and therefore, doesn't parent that way. Dad has been told, repeatedly by mom, that he has a right to do with their child on his time with her, but that mom's time is mom's - a true statement... but apparently, the court doesn't believe that. Parents have the right and potentially the responsibility to teach their children the reality of the world, and for a believer, that is that there is a savior, and consequences and moral standards to uphold. To tell him that his religion should not affect or divide their daughter is to tell him that he must live a lie. The child has not expressed her dislike of his religion, simply that she is not ready to follow it. This will become a problem at her school next year, as she is required to write a testimony of why she believes in Jesus as her Lord and Savior, and it seems that she will not be able to do so truthfully. I am quite positive though, that she will be encouraged to write whatever the school wants to hear so that she can stay with her friends.

That being said, he understands that court orders need to be followed, etc... and he has never broken one. He recognizes that he, as a parent, legally has no authority over this child, because the court will tell him how to parent, how to discipline, how to speak to her, and how to mediate their differences. He also recognizes that what the court has taught her in the last eight months is that if you don't want to deal with someone, you can find ways to make it all go away. It has also taught her that you can say complete lies and someone will be believe you and defend you. It has taught her to hide from her problems rather than face them.

I love my stepdaughter, and I am sad that this situation will make her into someone completely different from the person she had the capacity to be.

Thanks though, for the legal advice Casa... I appreciate all of your help.

 

[wileybunch]

My daughter has told me more than once that even though she was baptized at 30 days old because that was her father's belief at the time (he used to be Lutheran) that she got REBaptized in his new faith because it was the only way she could think of to prove to him that she believes in God. Not because SHE thought it was an important expression of faith, but because she needed to PROVE to him that she met his standards. That's not exactly healthy.

I will disagree with you here. Being baptized at 30 days old, she didn't have a choice so I'm throwing that one out of this, so to speak. But for the 2nd part of what you said ... she was old enough to make a choice then and if she did it to have her Dad witness her faith, it's a teaching of a doctrine she believes in, etc. and she also did it to communicate her faith to her father, that is not a bad thing. Kids do a LOT of what they do good to prove themselves to parents, make parents proud of them, not disappoint parents, etc. That is a fundamental building block of families.

OP, do Mom and Dad have different faith backgrounds? Or did they at one time and something changed?

 

[casa]

I'm trying to figure out the most respectful way to say this... I understand that you are speaking legally. However, if someone's child was lying in front of a freight train, about to be run over, the parent would understandably be expected to run and rescue them. This is what a person with a born-again faith understands - that all of humanity is in fact lying under a freight train, about to run them down for all of eternity, and that we each have to do something about it. One of our preachers talked once about how we can love our children straight to hell... by not teaching them the truth. My husband loves his daughter, and thus has always made sure that he taught her the truth. She responded positively to it... she professed belief. He parented her thus... Her mother sends her to a Christian school that believes the same thing he does... they teach her thus... Her mother doesn't live that life and therefore, doesn't parent that way. Dad has been told, repeatedly by mom, that he has a right to do with their child on his time with her, but that mom's time is mom's - a true statement... but apparently, the court doesn't believe that. Parents have the right and potentially the responsibility to teach their children the reality of the world, and for a believer, that is that there is a savior, and consequences and moral standards to uphold. To tell him that his religion should not affect or divide their daughter is to tell him that he must live a lie. The child has not expressed her dislike of his religion, simply that she is not ready to follow it. This will become a problem at her school next year, as she is required to write a testimony of why she believes in Jesus as her Lord and Savior, and it seems that she will not be able to do so truthfully. I am quite positive though, that she will be encouraged to write whatever the school wants to hear so that she can stay with her friends.

The POINT is that Religion is not the issue here. responding, explaining, quoting religious beliefs is NOT HELPING Dad. Not to sound harsh/blunt, but basically after reading that entire paragraph I thought: "So What?" I went to a zillion different churches throughout my childhood...my parents allowed me to do my own Seeking. If Dad's daughter isn't a true believer in HIS Religion~ SO WHAT? She's still his daughter. This is a no-brainer ...it's frustrating that Dad (& You) cannot seem to comprehend that Religion is not a necessity for many in this world. Just because you guys believe it, doesn't mean everyone else has to. And it doesn't mean they're going to Hell either. That is absolutely ridiculous & sounds so to the Courts as well.

That being said, he understands that court orders need to be followed, etc... and he has never broken one. He recognizes that he, as a parent, legally has no authority over this child, because the court will tell him how to parent, how to discipline, how to speak to her, and how to mediate their differences. He also recognizes that what the court has taught her in the last eight months is that if you don't want to deal with someone, you can find ways to make it all go away. It has also taught her that you can say complete lies and someone will be believe you and defend you. It has taught her to hide from her problems rather than face them.

No One accused Dad of not following the Court Orders. But, Dad is demonstrating and even verbalizing HIS belief that HIS religion is an authority above the Court. Think of the phrase "Holier than Thou" Now, that is just NOT going to help him before the Judge, the GAL, or apparently, his daughter. This case is not about Religion, it's about his CHILD

I love my stepdaughter, and I am sad that this situation will make her into someone completely different from the person she had the capacity to be. Thanks though, for the legal advice Casa... I appreciate all of your help.

The underlined sentence above concerns me. You really need to understand that throughout her childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc. she may invent & re-invent herself many times over. She will become who she's going to become. Period. Not being a born-again Christian does not mean you are winding up 'less than' the rest of the world.

And as long as you & Dad make Religion the focal point of ANY of this....you will be constantly shooting yourselves in the foot within the Judicial System.

 

[SMinNJ]

Can you see, or more importantly, can DAD see that HIM so obviously believing that 'non-believers' will go to hell and purporting that in his home and presumably to his CHILD, and then HER being a 'non-believer' ... might cause some stress? Some thought on the part of the child that she's not good enough for dad? That dad doesn't 'value' her or her opinions because they don't fit into his scope of belief?

I thought it was hard on my kids to hear that I'M going to hell. But if they were told (through words or actions) that THEY were going to hell? Come on!

My daughter has told me more than once that even though she was baptized at 30 days old because that was her father's belief at the time (he used to be Lutheran) that she got REBaptized in his new faith because it was the only way she could think of to prove to him that she believes in God. Not because SHE thought it was an important expression of faith, but because she needed to PROVE to him that she met his standards. That's not exactly healthy.

And what kind of hurt would it do to an adult who came to faith later to find out that their father knew all along what they needed to do and never told them they were in danger? She goes to a Christian school that teaches her this as well, registered her there unilaterally by her mother. The school, in 2nd grade, as part of their catechism, taught the children that they were worthless without Christ. That surely was a bit more blunt than we were putting it...

Yes, we understand it is stressful - unfortunately, there is no way around it, and that is why we also teach our children that God is loving and strong and can comfort and protect them always. We teach them that it is tough being a believer, but that it is something to rejoice over.

I am sorry your daughter made the decision she made... and I'm sorry that her father never taught her that she didn't need to do it to make him happy - but that she needed to do it because it was obedience to God. My stepdaughter went to the pastor herself, told the pastor that she needed to do it because she had learned at school that if she believed, she needed to follow all of God's commands, not just the easy ones. I have heard my husband, ad nauseum, tell my step daughter that she needs to do (in all things, not just religion) what makes her happy, not what she thinks will make him or her mom happy - because it is not in her power to make them happy. She is only responsible for herself and her actions...

Our best friends are a Jewish couple. They clearly don't believe what we believe. They tell us all the time they don't believe what we believe. They openly question our faith, our actions, and describe the hippy/commune way of childrearing they had. My stepdaughter has heard this and shared in these conversations and this friendship... and she knows we love them and invite them into our home and our family... She sees our relationship with my parents, who are not believers, and sees how friendly and loving we all are, even though they disagree with our faith and have open conversations about it... yet we invite them over frequently. My brother is homosexual, for crying out loud, and we've had he and his boyfriend spend the night at our home. I understand that it will be harder for a child to transfer that "tolerance" we have for other people to herself, but if we shield our children from all stress, how do we expect them to stand up against peer pressure and themselves when they are away from us?

Thanks for your thoughts though and your desire to help us see things clearly.

 

[casa]

And what kind of hurt would it do to an adult who came to faith later to find out that their father knew all along what they needed to do and never told them they were in danger? She goes to a Christian school that teaches her this as well, registered her there unilaterally by her mother. The school, in 2nd grade, as part of their catechism, taught the children that they were worthless without Christ. That surely was a bit more blunt than we were putting it...

What 'danger' are you refering to? The child is NOT in any 'danger' if she doesn't believe the exact same Religion/branch of Religion that you & Dad do. She may wind up marrying a Rabbi & converting to Judaism...who knows? It's HER choice to make though, not Dads.

Yes, we understand it is stressful - unfortunately, there is no way around it, and that is why we also teach our children that God is loving and strong and can comfort and protect them always. We teach them that it is tough being a believer, but that it is something to rejoice over.

I am sorry your daughter made the decision she made... and I'm sorry that her father never taught her that she didn't need to do it to make him happy - but that she needed to do it because it was obedience to God. My stepdaughter went to the pastor herself, told the pastor that she needed to do it because she had learned at school that if she believed, she needed to follow all of God's commands, not just the easy ones. I have heard my husband, ad nauseum, tell my step daughter that she needs to do (in all things, not just religion) what makes her happy, not what she thinks will make him or her mom happy - because it is not in her power to make them happy. She is only responsible for herself and her actions...

Our best friends are a Jewish couple. They clearly don't believe what we believe. They tell us all the time they don't believe what we believe. They openly question our faith, our actions, and describe the hippy/commune way of childrearing they had. My stepdaughter has heard this and shared in these conversations and this friendship... and she knows we love them and invite them into our home and our family... She sees our relationship with my parents, who are not believers, and sees how friendly and loving we all are, even though they disagree with our faith and have open conversations about it... yet we invite them over frequently. My brother is homosexual, for crying out loud, and we've had he and his boyfriend spend the night at our home. I understand that it will be harder for a child to transfer that "tolerance" we have for other people to herself, but if we shield our children from all stress, how do we expect them to stand up against peer pressure and themselves when they are away from us?

Thanks for your thoughts though and your desire to help us see things clearly.

Re; the underlined above: You sound like people who are bigots, who say "I'm not a biggot, I have friends who are white/black/gay/straight/Democrat/Republican, etc. etc. etc" The point is you tell SD that people who don't believe EXACTLY as you & Dad do, will go to Hell. So what mixed message are you sending step-daughter? That it's OK to be friends with people whom you believe are only going to wind up in Hell? That would freak out most kids....and possibly even cause attachment/inter-personal relationship issues. Seriously.

 

[SMinNJ]

The underlined sentence above concerns me. You really need to understand that throughout her childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc. she may invent & re-invent herself many times over. She will become who she's going to become. Period. Not being a born-again Christian does not mean you are winding up 'less than' the rest of the world.

And as long as you & Dad make Religion the focal point of ANY of this....you will be constantly shooting yourselves in the foot within the Judicial System.

I didn't mean to imply that not being a born again Christian means she will be less than the rest of the world. I meant by that the lessons she is learning about interpersonal relationships and how to deal with them. At age 33, I'm still struggling with the issues my mom inflicted on me as a child, her violence, her hysteria, her anger. I would have been grateful to have a parent like my husband to guide me through and teach me how to be strong on my own. I see many of his faults, I just don't always agree that they are the ones the evaluator saw...

This whole topic has gotten away from the legal advice it needed to be, and which I appreciate most. I don't want to hijack my own thread from its point .

To answer Wiley's question, Mom was raised Catholic, became a born again Christian shortly before meeting dad. She was baptized at a Baptist church. She professed belief until shortly before their divorce, when she turned away from God. She told the risk assessor that she was Catholic. According to the child, they as a family go to no church. She sends their child to a born-again type Christian school, where their regular curriculum, including science and history, includes religion, and where they are required before entering HS, to write their testimony of how they came to Christ.

Dad is not bringing up his faith to the court directly. He will, however, have to address it in counseling. It will end up being part of how this ends up because his faith is what defines him and it defines what he teaches his children, how his family is set up, and how he interacts with the world.

One last comment, just on my own, not as dad's wife, but as a "religious nut" who is often told that her views are intolerant, I want to make one thing clear. Every time someone tells me that religion is not a necessity in this world, that someone is not going to hell just because they don't believe in God, that someone is demeaning my faith and my religion, and telling me that I cannot hold the views that I have. This is no better than the intolerance I am accused of. It is mocking me and what I know to be true.

Thanks for your comments and your help.

 

[wileybunch]

Re; the underlined above: You sound like people who are bigots, who say "I'm not a biggot, I have friends who are white/black/gay/straight/Democrat/Republican, etc. etc. etc" The point is you tell SD that people who don't believe EXACTLY as you & Dad do, will go to Hell. So what mixed message are you sending step-daughter? That it's OK to be friends with people whom you believe are only going to wind up in Hell? That would freak out most kids....and possibly even cause attachment/inter-personal relationship issues. Seriously.

Smom/Dad aren't a different religion than the daughter. I don't understand why this distinctions are being made that Dad's forcing his religious views on the daughter.

I also don't take her as a bigot at all. Wow, tough words. She was explaining how they have friends of different faiths than both of theirs and it's not an issue for them.

 

[casa]

I didn't mean to imply that not being a born again Christian means she will be less than the rest of the world. I meant by that the lessons she is learning about interpersonal relationships and how to deal with them. At age 33, I'm still struggling with the issues my mom inflicted on me as a child, her violence, her hysteria, her anger. I would have been grateful to have a parent like my husband to guide me through and teach me how to be strong on my own. I see many of his faults, I just don't always agree that they are the ones the evaluator saw...

This whole topic has gotten away from the legal advice it needed to be, and which I appreciate most. I don't want to hijack my own thread from its point .

To answer Wiley's question, Mom was raised Catholic, became a born again Christian shortly before meeting dad. She was baptized at a Baptist church. She professed belief until shortly before their divorce, when she turned away from God. She told the risk assessor that she was Catholic. According to the child, they as a family go to no church. She sends their child to a born-again type Christian school, where their regular curriculum, including science and history, includes religion, and where they are required before entering HS, to write their testimony of how they came to Christ.

And some students have to write esssays on a myriad of topics. I'm fairly certain some of those children will be viewing that as just another assignment to complete prior to Jr. High Graduation.

Dad is not bringing up his faith to the court directly. He will, however, have to address it in counseling. It will end up being part of how this ends up because his faith is what defines him and it defines what he teaches his children, how his family is set up, and how he interacts with the world.

Right. THIS is the most important part. The counselor will see the differences between what is or is not actually NPD. That's a good thing for Dad

One last comment, just on my own, not as dad's wife, but as a "religious nut" who is often told that her views are intolerant, I want to make one thing clear. Every time someone tells me that religion is not a necessity in this world, that someone is not going to hell just because they don't believe in God, that someone is demeaning my faith and my religion, and telling me that I cannot hold the views that I have. This is no better than the intolerance I am accused of. It is mocking me and what I know to be true.


Thanks for your comments and your help.

That's not mocking you. That is someone holding up the mirror to you....showing you how your statements 'sound', feel &/or are received by others. ie; When you say it's offensive to you to hear that people can & will make their OWN choices...likewise it's offensive to other people when you say YOUR way is the only truth. Know what I mean?