SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Hi All,

Well, our mediation date is September 24th. I am still in the depths of pain here and wondering when this will subside. Will the actual agreeing on divorce help? The finality of it leaves me with a huge weight on my chest. I never wanted this for me or for the kids, but feel I had to file because my STBExH never did anything to reconcile, and instead strung me along with fake reconciliation. I am now second-guessing myself. Did the 180 backfire?! Should I have tried harder? I feel I did everything I could be he did nothing. It's just so hard to accept the fact that he likely checked out long ago while I was still so invested in the marriage. I guess I'm just needing some encouragement as I lead up to mediation. That I'm doing the right thing. That this was irreconcilable.

It's a funny thing that I think I'm on the upward trajectory, and then I'm leveled again with sadness and anger and second thoughts. I know in my heart of hearts, I couldn't go back to someone who treated me and his family with so little regard, but it still hurts like hell. I hope this gets better after the divorce is final.

I think you should not have guilt over D the STBXH as you stated, you did everything you could.

You will be sad for awhile but it won’t be permanent.

You did your best. That’s all you can do.

You are doing the right thing. For R to work, you both have to be in it 100% because it is hard work and you can't R by yourself. You're showing your children that it is safe and smart to establish boundaries in relationships.

The emotional rollercoaster is real, and it will pick you up for a ride at any time. It's ok to grieve for your M and the future you thought you had. It does take time and healing, but it does get better.

Once you get to the other side of the divorce process you will start to feel better. Really, there is no need for you to bear the burden of infidelity any long with a partner who does not want to do the work. You are worth so much more!

I'm sure you wish he could be a better person, to not have cheated, or at the least to have tried his very best to fix things.

Sadly you know that isn't true. It hurts, but ask yourself is it the loss of "him" as a person, or the loss of the life you imagined for your kids?

Even if it is him, is he really the person you thought he was?

You will be happier when the divorce is done, but there will always be some sadness for your kids and the loss of their family unit, I am betting you will soon realize he wasn't great at all.

When you’re at the mediation, please know that the mediator’s job isn’t to achieve the most fair, or even fair, resolution but rather any resolution to just close out the case. The mediator will cater to the more emotional, demanding squeaky wheel, to the detriment of the calm, rational party just to reach any sort of resolution. Cynical but true. I learned this too late in the process.

Although Alonelyagain warning is relevant and correct and based on experience I want to counter that a bit...

A mediator can not force a resolution down either parties throat.
When you enter the negotiations there is already an expectation of what each party is entitled to based on the laws in your state. The mediator can only deviate from that if both parties agree to the deviation.
For example: Let’s imagine you got a 10k inheritance from your uncle Bob a year ago that you placed into a savings account. According to Texas law (as per your profile) that would be your asset. If your husband demanded 5k of that amount the mediator might ask you if you agree to it, but would have to listen and take note of your refusal.
If your husband insisted and didn’t give way then it would be up to his legal team to convince him the law was on your side. If there was some gray area (like if the money had been deposited in a joint account) and neither your legal team, his or the mediator can sway either of you – mediation stops and this divorce goes to a judge.

The key to success in mediation is to be aware of the cards you hold, and what concessions you might be willing to make. Basically – exchanging one demand from him with a requirement from you. You "reluctantly" allow him to keep his expensive, hand-made-to-order golf-set in lieu of you getting the newer vehicle sort of thing.

A final suggestion:
Don’t sign or accept any "final settlement" while sitting at the table. Ask for an hours break (or even a day or two) to go over the proposed settlement. Go to another room with the team you trust (your attorney) and go over it item by item. Realize where you are giving ground, where you are gaining and where it’s just plain fair. Remember – nobody – not your husband, the mediator on any of the legal team – can force your signature.

Sending good mojo your way!

As an attorney who has participated in hundreds of mediations/arbitrations/settlement conferences and later presided over some, I do not find this to be true at all (in fact in some cases it seemed the opposite - the mediator was not interested in assisting the emotional party...or became frustrated with them because usually the more emotional party is less capable of looking at whatever is trying to be settled from an objective position):

The mediator will cater to the more emotional, demanding squeaky wheel, to the detriment of the calm, rational party just to reach any sort of resolution. Cynical but true. I learned this too late in the process.

A mediator's job is to resolve the case - this is absolutely true.

When you’re at the mediation, please know that the mediator’s job isn’t to achieve the most fair, or even fair, resolution but rather any resolution to just close out the case.

But the rest of this is based on a misunderstanding of what the process is about. I want to point out that a mediator is not there to adjudicate "fairness" - and fairness is not the purpose of a mediation/settlement. This is so as there is no possibility to determine what someone will think is "fair." Instead the mediator is there to resolve the case, IF possible, or to at least help the parties understand the other party's position. If your mediator is pressuring you to accept something, ask why. The biggest issue I saw with mediation/settlement was where there was a party who could not control their emotions in order to really get what the mediator was saying - I had a client who had a horrible case, and the facts were not in his favor...but he was so obsessed with the "fairness" of what had transpired up to that point, he was completely unwilling to listen to the (in this case arbitrator) tell him why his case was not likely to give him the outcome he desired (which was the same thing I had been telling this particular client, for awhile, to no avail). The mediator seemed to empathize with my client but his unwillingness to negotiate had the opposite effect of the poster who I quoted above, and I could tell my client's lack of ability to come to terms with the reality of the situation was frustrating for the arbitrator.

In other words, you don't know how your mediator will react.

The mediator is there to facilitate an exchange of positions You have to realize that an uninvolved 3rd party is not there to plead your case - they are not going to choose sides - and usually they have no vested interest in a specific outcome. One of the things I was told when I first started working with settlement rings the most true: The best settlements are where all parties come out marginally unhappy. Why? Not because mediators are awful people who like making people miserable - but because in order to settle - negotiation is required - and negotiation requires parties give a little from their starting positions. The mediator's job is to find a middle ground where each party gives up something to get something else they want...otherwise the mediation fails.

So when you go think about your must haves and the things you are willing to give up in exchange for must haves (and what the other side might really want that you don't care much about - and negotiate with that). And of course know, you don't have to settle.

[This message edited by ThisIsSoLonely at 4:20 PM, Tuesday, September 24th]

Thanks all for your comments/support. Mediation was yesterday and we didn't settle, so we're back to the table on October 7.

@ThisisSoLonely -- I hear you that the best settlements are where all parties come out marginally unhappy. That might be the case here. It is so disheartening that he's fighting to take 1/2 of the retirement benefits that I've worked so hard for, but doesn't want to pay child support, doesn't want to share in expenses for the kids.

I guess this seals the nail in the coffin of any feelings I ever had for him. It's like a monstor has emerged. I keep wondering -- was he like this all along or has this person recently emerged? It's so sad and mind boggling.

I also was very unhappy how the mediator (a former family law judge), asked whether he could stay at the house while I travel for work, and whether I think I can get to a spot where I can sit next to him at games for the sake of the children. I told her that I have NEVER put my needs above those of my family, but I am finally doing so and given the betrayal and trauma, I do not want him in my house and I will not be sitting next to him. I can't think of any other scenario where anyone would suggest that a victim play nice with her perpetrator. I would have expected much more from a seasoned, female family law judge.

So, now two more weeks of dread, waiting for the next mediation. It's like I've been set back yet again in my healing process. I hope to God that we finalize things on the 7th and I can FINALLY start healing from this nightmare.

As someone who represented children in family court (not my main area of practice - I did it very part time and pro bono so my knowledge IS limited) I think I can answer this question:

I can't think of any other scenario where anyone would suggest that a victim play nice with her perpetrator. I would have expected much more from a seasoned, female family law judge.

Family law judges usually have one thing first and foremost in their minds: the "best interest of the child (or children)." It is almost always the number one consideration in most custody proceedings. It is certainly their number one consideration in the abuse and neglect context (I'm not implying that is where you are - it is where my experience comes as I used to represent kids who were either wards of the state already or in parental rights terminations and/or limited visitation). So, I'm not surprised that is where the concern of the judge was (I apologize as I do not know your circumstances specifically).

The thought process is that in normal circumstances kids do better when their parents are together (and getting along relatively well) or when separated/divorced and getting along relatively well. Family law judges never want to hear that parents are fighting in front of the kids about money or otherwise, and the less stress the kids perceive between the parents the better. They never want to hear that parents are using their kids as a weapon (e.g. "I'm not bringing the kids over unless you ___________ (pay child support or whatever.)". So I am not shocked to hear a judge ask if you think there will be a time that you could sit next to your STBX and play a game with the kids present and have it be okay, because the perception is that would be the best situation for the kids.

Unfortunately in the family law arena, the kids are usually the main focus of the judge (this is not always the case I know, but it frequently is). The judge likely thinks, you all are adults, so I am going to put your kids best interests first and you two can figure your shit out on your own. I know it oversimplifies things and I know it seems unfair to YOU, but if I had to guess that statement came with the kids in mind. In other abuse situations, where no children are involved, I think such a question would be out of line. In yours, I can imagine a reason why it happened.

[This message edited by ThisIsSoLonely at 5:36 PM, Wednesday, September 25th]