John and Mary had been married for nearly 2 years when Mary had a 6-month affair with a co-worker. The co-worker left for another job and Mary sought an escape by enrolling in masters program in the evenings after work. In spite of this, they had an unplanned pregnancy and baby Jane was born 18 months after the affair ended.
Mary had little desire to be a parent and insisted that they hire a nanny. After many months it was discovered that the nanny turned out to be an ex-alcoholic with a host of medical problems, but appeared to be caring so they kept her on, although she did spend much of her day on the phone. The nanny would often describe extreme conflict between her and other members of her family, and frequently complained about Mary's lack of desire to parent baby Jane. John and the nanny got along fairly well. The nanny would come in the morning by bus and get Jane and take her back to her house. When Jane was 2 1/2 Mary took extra courses to finish her Master's degree and so was rarely home, and the nanny would keep Jane many overnights because John had no car with which to pick her up. This angered John and he confronted Mary about this arrangement, at which point she stated that she wanted a divorce (coincidentally, this was 3 days before she was to finish her degree).
John further demanded that Jane be home every night, which angered the nanny because she now was very attached to little Jane and was threatened by the prospect of "losing" her. The nanny and John ceased any verbal contact and the nanny began to develop stronger ties to Mary. Mary stated that she wanted "nights out" to meet other people and suggested that John move into the downstairs den. John was still naievely hoping that Mary would come to her senses now that her graduate program was done. Mistake #1: John should have gone to counseling and filed for divorce
The winter holidays were upon them and Mary decided to postpone these arrangements until after Jane's January birthday (when she turned 3). Jane was still spending overnights at the nanny's and John was afraid to rock the boat.
Mistake #2: John should have demanded and enforced Jane being home every night
Shortly after the birthday, the nanny told Mary that Jane interrupted her phone call and said "daddy hurt me". The nanny questioned Jane relentlessly for a week about this, asking her leading questions about where and when and a story gradually developed before she had even approached Mary. When told, Mary was upset and immediately took Jane to the family doctor to have her checked for "soreness". Nothing, of course, was found and Mary was appeased. The nanny kept badgering her with Jane's statements and Mary would watch John and Jane secretly during the odd-times that Jane was home. John still had no idea that anything was amiss, and after two weeks, Mary took Jane back to the doctor and disclosed Jane's statements. They did not see anything upon a close examination and Jane made no disclosures. They suggested Mary take Jane to the Family Intervention Center. Meanwhile, Mary secretly saw an attorney who also suggested a child psychologist that he knew. It was at this point that Mary disclosed the events to John and told him to get an attorney. Extreme anger erupted in the household. Mary made an appointment with the psychologist for the two of them and, since John was there, admitted the state of the marriage.
Mistake #3: John should have obtained an attorney at this point
After several days, Jane also went to see the psychologist and repeated the statements that the nanny had been badgering her about for the past month. The psychologist, as required by law, reported the situation to CYS. Mary, meanwhile, had been secretly seeing her attorney. Upon receiving the news that a CYS investigation had begun, Mary and her attorney went to court and obtained a PFA stating that little Jane was being abused and John refused to leave the house. The truth was that Jane was spending every night at the nanny's and John had never been asked to leave the residence. But Mary and her attorney used this as a great opportunity to force the father out of the house (which Mary had wanted for a long time) and gave her the upper hand in the divorce proceedings, which began the following week. The CYS caseworker, however, was upset that he knew nothing about the PFA being served and was not given any notice to appear in court to testify as to the nature of the case.
John was now at the mercy of the system and was effectively homeless and only had time to take some clothes with him. The Judge made a mistake by not obtaining all the facts.
Not having an attorney, John opened the phonebook and picked a lawyer at random out of the phonebook, but as luck would have it, she knew of an excellent psychologist. She represented John at the PFA continuance the following week and referred John to the psychologist, as well as another excellent firm that dealt with Family Law.
Wise action #1: John now had excellent legal representation due to an excellent referral, and he had a top-notch psychologist.
The psychologist was a tenured professor (and taught child development at a local University) and immediately gave John a battery of psychological tests before even talking to him. After understanding John's mental state, he began to help John feel empowered over this "surreal" situation that had developed over the previous month and turned his world upside down. He talked to the CYS caseworker and tried to arrange a time when he could meet Jane, but the mother refused to bring Jane. Meanwhile, Jane's psychologist rendered her report as "unfounded" because of the bizarre nature of the nanny and the mother's having taken advantage of this situation to initiate a divorce. Immediately upon receiving the "unfounded" notice, the father's attorney filed for an emergency petition with a new judge to obtain partial custody every other weekend, which was granted.
Wise action #2: John used the 6 weeks during the investigation to contemplate his future and decided to fight for time with his daughter. He immediately fought for shared custody and the removal of the nanny from the situation and initiated action to show the judge he was serious. By not waiting, he helped undercut Mary's argument that a Status Quo had been established.
John moved off his brother's couch and moved into a 2-bedroom apartment a few blocks from the family home and his parents lent him some sparse furniture. Mary refused to give him any of his belongings, keeping them as "negotiating tools". In preparation for the custody trial, a court-appointed psychologist met with John. Their first meeting was a disaster. The lady psychologist was over an hour late and he was ready to leave when she unexpectedly walked in and never apologized for her tardiness. The 1st hour they spent going over a worksheet with family history and the 2nd hour was spent discussing the situation and noting that John was angry about the situation. A few weeks later, she wanted John to bring little Jane for a weekday appointment. Mary refused to allow John to pick up Jane and brought her up to the office and left her there with John and the psychologist. In spite of not having had any contact with Jane for 10 days prior to the visit, they warmed up nicely (Jane even said "I love you" to John) for the few minutes they had before the psychologist took Jane into her office. The psychologist never reported Mary's behavior in her report. John and the psychologist didn't discuss anything. During her session, Mary denied having an affair and accused John of lying - the psychologist believed Mary's account of the marriage. Also unknown to John, the nanny had been constantly calling the psychologist complaining about John and telling her that he was threatening her (which was untrue - John had no contact with the Nanny whatsoever). The psychologist had a very negative view of John primarily due to the nanny and the report was not encouraging which was a serious setback.
Wise action #3: John had continued to see his psychologist extensively and so didn't take out his frustrations in a negative or violent way. Instead, his psychologist wrote a scathing rebuke of the court-appointed psychologist's report and stated that she failed to correctly state his analyses of John or this situation. He accused the court psychologist of failing to be objective. John also always kept his weekend visits voluntarily supervised by his parents, and the new 2hr weekday visits supervised by friends.
Mary, meanwhile, reported John to the Postal inspector because a neighbor boy said somebody had been looking in her mailbox. This came back unfounded as well. Also, Mary had gotten rid of the Jane's first psychologist because of the "unfounded" report. In preparation for the trial, she took her to a 2nd lady psychologist, who, in turn, referred her to a 3rd lady counselor (not a psychologist). Just at this time, the nanny reported to Mary the morning after a 2hr mid-week visit that Jane had a sore bottom and accused John of hurting her again. Mary took her to the doctor who reported it as eczema, but reported it to CYS because of Jane's statement that "daddy hurt her", and so a 2nd CYS investigation began and the father's time was again reduced. Jane had been subjected to the nanny's leading questioning for about a year now, and "daddy hurt me" was a very normal statement for her to make because of the positive attention she received from the nanny and Mary every time she said it. Mary also took her to the Family Intervention Center (FIC) where she was evaluated by a nationally-renowned abuse evaluator. Mary was scolded by numerous professionals at this office and was told to apply a premarin cream to Jane's genital area to avoid adhesions. Mary refused to accept their findings. She also took Jane to the lady counselor who refused to obtain any outside corroborating information, but instead engaged in an aggressive campaign to ask leading questions of Jane in order to have her make statements. Bizarre analyses were being created by this lady counselor, and Jane was becoming so upset that after the 5th visit with her she would just sit and rock back and forth and refuse to answer her questions. The counselor stopped any more visits for several months and blamed the father for rendering her unable to respond to therapy! The counselor also was badgering CYS and her "friend" there, but because the pediatrician called it in, they rendered it "Unfounded", although they spent 2 months instead of the legally-mandated 1month to render their verdict.
Wise action #4: By continuing in counseling (John even predicted there would be more CYS accusations, and his psychologist was surprised that John was correct) and keeping careful logs of his actions, it was now appearing that Mary and the nanny had a vendetta against John. John also hired a college student of his psychologist to supervise his evening visits, which resulted in one witnessed violent incident perpetrated by Mary. The courts still tend to err on the side of caution and so refused to chastise Mary
During pre-trial statements, Mary's attorney listed all of the accusations against John and foolishly listed medical reports from all of the professionals involved. John (not his lawyer) reviewed and contacted all of the medical professionals (some at a cost) to obtain their office records. The information was a gold-mine of information. John discovered that virtually all of the professionals had negative evaluations of Mary - calling her "neurotic" and accusing her of lying to make her case. The only professional witness that sided with her was the Counselor she hired, who actually was unaware of all of the other reports and was rendered speechless when confronted with the reports while testifying. Nevertheless, she still adamantly stood by her findings. The 5-day trial spanned two months and the judge ordered:
1) no increase in the father's time! (inexplicable)
2) the nanny's removal from the daycare situation (she was seen as the instigator)
3) Jane was to be placed in counseling by a neutral psychologist picked by the father's psychologist and and Mary's counselor's boss
4) the case was to be reviewed in 6 months for a possible increase in the father's time, with the goal of eventually having shared custody - made possible by the father's living only blocks away from the mother
Wise action #5: The father continued in extensive therapy, stating that he believed Mary would make more accusations. The father and mother took Jane to the new psychologist; the father's request for the nanny's removal had an instant effect of positive relations between everyone
After 9 months of therapy, John asked the new psychologist if she would support increased time. Concurrently, while visiting with Jane at his parent's home, she burned herself slightly by trying to pick up a consumed sparkler that was still hot. The mother was irate over the pea-sized blister upon her return and took her to the pediatrician, who heard Jane say that "Daddy burned me". The lady pediatrician called CYS and a 3rd investigation was underway. State police visited the father, mother and grandparents, who witnessed the incident. Nevertheless, the lady pediatrician, Dr. Sarchev tried to play junior forensic doctor and stated that the child wouldn't have grabbed the sparkler at that angle. Nevertheless, due to the police reports, the investigation again came back "unfounded". John's psychologist was amazed that John was right that the mother would try this again. Jane's new psychologist brought father/daughter together and asked her why she said this to the police and to the doctor, and Jane broke down crying stating that her mom would be angry with her if she didn't say these things and acknowledged that her father was understanding and didn't get mad.
John and Mary met with the psychologist and she concurred that the judge's order for increased time for the father should be acted upon, whereupon the mother stormed out of the session and after subsequent arguments with the psychologist, refused to take Jane anymore.
John petitioned the court and the psychologist recommended one extra overnight every other week. Mary disagreed and the court officer ordered as per the psychologist's recommendation plus week on/off in the summer. Mary appealed the appelate court and to the State Superior Court, which held the father in check for an additional 2 years.
Wise action #6: By staying in therapy (which at this point amounted to guidance) and disclosing (accurately) Mary's motives and lack of concern for her daughter except as a weapon against him, John created a wealth of support from professionals, which finally unmasked the true nature of the mother. By quickly following up modifications, he showed an earnest desire to remain in an unfettered relationship with his daughter. By continuing to live close to the mother, it also made it possible to have weekday overnight visits. It took 3 years from the original separation for the additional overnight to occur.
Upon receiving the Superior Court's ruling, the father made his final motion for fully shared custody. A new court-appointed psychologist was assigned and he consulted with John's psychologist and Jane's psychologist and reported an extremely negative picture of Mary. A one-day trial resulted in the judge ordering his own version of shared custody. This process took 5 1/2 years from the initial separation. John had always pointed out the positive aspects of Mary to psychologists, and the more astute and qualified ones recorded this (as well as Mary's scathing attacks on John), whereas the less qualified and less astute took statements at face value.
Jane has progressed wonderfully since spending more time with her father. Her test scores have risen dramatically and her psychological well-being has imporoved immeasurably. Whereas she used to be quiet and introverted, she is now asserting herself and her wishes more frequently, and being proactive in family problem-solving.
Upon receiving shared custody, John immediately requested a modification of support. Since Mary used her advanced degree and professional license to move up the corporate ladder, she now pays him a substantial support payment each month. However, it pales in comparison to the $75,000 he had to pay in legal/psychologist/supervision bills over the previous years to keep himself out of jail and keep the relationship with his daughter alive. As a recipient of child support, John feels the sums awarded are absurd and can't be justified by the current tables.
Final Wise action: Having attained his goal, John still occasionally goes to counseling and continues to take Jane (now 12) to counseling frequently. He has not requested any modifications of support or custody over the past 4 years. "My goal isn't money, it's my daughter's time that I value and I don't want a court observer to say, after looking at court records, that this isn't working because we're still in and out of court all the time".
Note: If John had initiated the divorce or gone to counseling prior to these events, it would have helped strengthen his case with initial evaluators since they would have seen that this was clearly a marriage that was in trouble.