PAS? Anyone Else?

[Momfortwo]

Exactly - the place to fight is in court.  The court will never order that the kids participate in sports - just as they wouldn't order you to dress your child a certain way or take them to church.  But, if there is a reason, they may order that the father stay away from games when it's mom's parenting time.

As it stands, dad has just as much right as mom to be in the games, and mom pulling them out is involving the children in the "power struggle".  If she feels that there is a good reason for him not to be at the games, then she is the one that should go and ask the court to prohibit him from coming during her parenting time.  Otherwise, he is doing nothing wrong by being there.

She's the one with the problem - she's the one who should address it through the proper channels.  The children are not the proper channel.

Actually, courts HAVE ordered that the child be able to attend sports on the other parents time.  It's all going to depend on the history of the child's involvement and the judge.

The father IS doing something wrong.  Like it or not, he KNOWS (he clearly stated in his very first post that the mother stated that the children would not go to the game if he is there) that his children won't be able to participate in the sports if he shows up.  And knowing that, he went anyway.   BOTH parents are involving the kids in their power struggle.  BTW, the flip side to the father is doing nothing wrong by being there when he knows the mother won't bring the kids is that the mother is doing nothing wrong by not bringing the kids when she knows the father will be there. 

The mother doesn't have to go to court.  She chose how she was going to deal with the situation.  By not taking the kids on her week-end.  Which she can do in the abscence of a court order.

If the father wants the kids to go to the games each week-end, the father needs to go to court and see if a judge will agree with him.   And given that the mother is the one who signed them up, I think his chances are good.   

If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't go to the games on the mother's week-end.  I don't see how depriving a child of participating so that I can exercise my right to be there is in the child's best interest anymore than the mother refusing to let the child participate on her week-end because the father will be there is in the child's best interest.   

Unfortunately, the kids are the ones involved in the power struggle between the parents.  And neither parent is willing to do what is in the children's best interest.   

[Momfortwo]

Also, he would have a hard time in court explaining that he is not "allowed" to be at their games.  Judge would prob say, just show up.  Like was said, mom would have to go to court to show a good reason that he shouldn't be there.

Or just not take the kids  to the game. 

BTW, you may want to read his first post.  He knew that the mother would not take the kids to the game if he showed up.  Says it in the first post.

[snowrose]

[As stated before, the mother is wrong for doing what she is doing.  That doesn't change the fact that the father is wrong for doing what he is doing.   

Yes, he does need to fight for his kids.  In a way that doesn't deprive them of participating in their games.

He's going about it in a way that is depriving the kids of that.

The place to fight is in COURT.  Because that is the only place that can order that the kids participate in sports, regardless of whose week-end it is.   

Right now, both parents are just turning it into a power struggle with the other.  One that the kids are losing.   

I agree with Momfortwo.  Both parents are at fault.  Yes, the mother has greater fault as it's wholly inappropriate to pull a child from the field in the middle of the game.  But it was also possible for the father to leave once he knew that the mother would indeed carry out her threat.  Knowing that the mother will indeed pull the child out of the event if he's there, what is the point of his going to the games on her time - they'll be pulled as soon as he arrives.  He gains nothing because he still can't see his children play, and the children - they lose a LOT.

The proper thing to do - until he has a court order (supposedly) fixing this fiasco - is to simply stay away from the games during the mother's weekends so the children can comfortably play their sports.

Believe me, if you think the father is accumulating brownie points with his children by his actions, you're wrong.  And it's not just PAS by the mother causing the problems.  It's also his own willfulness that is the joint agent (along with the mother) in the face of his children's humiliation.

And if you say, she may have a good reason for being uncomfortable (abusing, stalking ect) she states in her email "kids know that it is me, not you", so that indicates that it is a problem coming from her own end.

No, it indicates that she admits that she is having a problem.  That doesn't mean that she is the sole engineer of the problem.

BTW, saying 'I'm the problem, not your dad' doesn't sound like PAS to me.

And for the record, we're currently going through a much more mild version of this, with the non-custodial BM now hinting to SD9 that she won't go to activities if her custodial father or I attend an activity.  (Not that it matters.  She's never attended any activity in the last 2 years that we've had custody, anyhow.)

[gemini3]

Interestingly, this exact scenario is covered in "Divorce Casualties" by Douglas Darnall, PhD.  On page 175 - "Mom, Why Can't Dad Come to My Game?"

"Children who are not alienated from either parent will want both parents to attend their social activities.  They want to show off their talent at sporting events or recitals so they can revel in their parents applause.  Only after the children have experienced alienation will they comment about not wanting both parents to attend.  [HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]A custodial parent who refuses the other parent to attend an event or "forgetting" to give the other parent advance notice of their children's activities is encouraging alienation, usually for their own self-interest."[/HIGHLIGHT]

In his tips in this section he specifically says:

"Custodial parents have more power than noncustodial parents because they have physical possession of the children and can say no.  However, the noncutodial parent should not have to ask permission to attend one of their children's activities.  Otherwise, the other parent has too much power, which can be abused."


And that's all I have to say about that.

[snowrose]

Interestingly, this exact scenario is covered in "Divorce Casualties" by Douglas Darnall, PhD.  On page 175 - "Mom, Why Can't Dad Come to My Game?"

"Children who are not alienated from either parent will want both parents to attend their social activities.  They want to show off their talent at sporting events or recitals so they can revel in their parents applause.  Only after the children have experienced alienation will they comment about not wanting both parents to attend.  [HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]A custodial parent who refuses the other parent to attend an event or "forgetting" to give the other parent advance notice of their children's activities is encouraging alienation, usually for their own self-interest."[/HIGHLIGHT]

In his tips in this section he specifically says:

"Custodial parents have more power than noncustodial parents because they have physical possession of the children and can say no.  However, the noncutodial parent should not have to ask permission to attend one of their children's activities.  Otherwise, the other parent has too much power, which can be abused."


And that's all I have to say about that.

Gemini, I really don't think that anyone is disagree with the notions that you've quoted above.  The problem appears to be that some folks are willing to see that the father is also making things uncomfortable for the children and in a passive aggressive way is also wielding power, as he knows how the mother will react and is creating the reaction by his own actions.  That kind of passive aggressive action happening continually at game after game shows that the conflict is as willful on his part as it is on her part.  Other folks appear to hold him wholly blameless.

Both parents need a time out and to go to their 'respective corners' (stick to their own times) until the court can start to make both of them come to their senses.  They're obviously not going to do it on their own.

[Momfortwo]

Interestingly, this exact scenario is covered in "Divorce Casualties" by Douglas Darnall, PhD.  On page 175 - "Mom, Why Can't Dad Come to My Game?"

"Children who are not alienated from either parent will want both parents to attend their social activities.  They want to show off their talent at sporting events or recitals so they can revel in their parents applause.  Only after the children have experienced alienation will they comment about not wanting both parents to attend.  [HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]A custodial parent who refuses the other parent to attend an event or "forgetting" to give the other parent advance notice of their children's activities is encouraging alienation, usually for their own self-interest."[/HIGHLIGHT]

In his tips in this section he specifically says:

"Custodial parents have more power than noncustodial parents because they have physical possession of the children and can say no.  However, the noncutodial parent should not have to ask permission to attend one of their children's activities.  Otherwise, the other parent has too much power, which can be abused."


And that's all I have to say about that.

You know what?  As a victim of attempted PAS by my dad, I really didn't care WHO was to blame.  I was just tired of the fighting done by BOTH parents and being put in the middle.  It didn't matter who was at fault.  All that mattered is that BOTH parents (my mom less so than my dad) put all of my siblings in the middle. 

Just like the original poster and his ex are doing.  Like it or not, BOTH parents are to blame for putting the kids in the middle of their power struggle. 

[Kitty C.]

To repeat my previous post:

'As I stated before, if he could attend any event without her knowledge of him being there and she doesn't remove the children, then the problem is totally on her shoulders, given her past behavior........Obviously the kids are aware that the BM is forcing them choose her over Dad......and the longer this goes on, the more it will effect them long term.'

As rabid as the BM is about this, even after six years, she is no doubt obssessively watching for him.  I would not be surprised if he's tried to attend as unnoticed as possible, but she's probably searched until she's found him out.  THAT is obsessive and if she even willingly confessed to the children about it, she has some serious mental issues.  Yes, I recommend that he back off and if she doesn't like the situation but refuses to file in court for it, then he must.  Because this situation will only get progressively worse.  It is obviously having an effect on the children already.  But I only recommend that he back off....for him to completely give it up, it gives the kids the message that he's given up on them.

[snowrose]

I would not be surprised if he's tried to attend as unnoticed as possible, but she's probably searched until she's found him out.

Kitty, the first time he went over to SD, called her and handed her ball to her.  That first time of being obvious is all it takes for someone already paranoid to be looking carefully around the next time.  (I'm guessing that SD had said something to BM about forgetting her ball at Daddy's so BM was checking the crowd for him to see if he'd bring it to her that day.)

Yes, I recommend that he back off and if she doesn't like the situation but refuses to file in court for it, then he must.  Because this situation will only get progressively worse.  It is obviously having an effect on the children already.  But I only recommend that he back off....for him to completely give it up, it gives the kids the message that he's given up on them.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by "for him to completely give it up"... Give what up?

But yes, it's the total effect on the children that has to be considered first and foremost - and Momfortwo's post makes that so evident...

As a victim of attempted PAS by my dad, I really didn't care WHO was to blame.  I was just tired of the fighting done by BOTH parents and being put in the middle.  It didn't matter who was at fault.  All that mattered is that BOTH parents... put all of my siblings in the middle.

[gemini3]

The whole reason it's called "Parental Alienation" is because the alienating parent makes it so difficult for the children to have a healthy, meaningful relationship with the targeted parent that they end up wishing the target parent would just go away so that life would be easier.  That's a typical response from a child - but it doesn't make alienation tactics justifiable in any sense of the word.

I can't believe that we're actually debating whether or not a father is a bad person for going to his kids soccer game and (gasp) handing his daughter a ball that she forgot at his house - and therefore deserves to have his ex-wife punish his children for his actions.  Un-freaking-believable.

Please.  This whole conversation has gotten beyond the point of ridiculousness - and clearly beyond the point of any usefulness it might have had for the original poster.

[mdegol]

Gemini,
Could not have said it better myself. I was trying but you expressed it perfectly. Dad is having a hard enough time.  Perfectly explains kid's response. Thanks.