Daddies are important, part 1

Daddies are important, too

                I talk to too many people who seem to think that father’s are merely a supplemental adult in a child’s life.  We need to explore how this concept was created and how we can stop it.  Really, we need a national, ongoing conversation on the matter, and I am eager to be a party to this conversation.

How this situation was created:

                We need to figure out how we arrived at this moment in time.  Although I could examine the changing role of each parent through the centuries, we need only go to the middle of the last century to figure out how tour family constellation got created for the modern era.  About 50-60 years ago, just after World War II, men were coming home from war and taking over the available jobs.  People were eager to get back to normalcy and create nuclear households after a decade of depression and a half decade of war.  In their idealized version of the new world, women were in charge of the home and men were in charge of the workplace.  The good ol’ boy network was full of boys, and women had a hard time finding a way to get ahead at the office.  Men were expected to be the providers, and if a woman had income, it was expected to be supplemental to her families’ needs, not essential to putting the roof over their heads.  It is no surprise that everyone assumed, when a couple was getting a divorce, that the mother would get custody of the children and the father would have to continue to support the children until they were through school (college or high school, whichever was expected in their family) as well as support his ex wife throughout her life until she got re-married and had a new man to support her. 

                That configuration worked well on the surface only as long as all parties threw themselves into their roles, but a lazy homemaker or rebellious and resentful breadwinner would through a family constellation into oblivion.   Family problems were kept behind closed doors, so we do not have a count of how many families this did not work for, but the eventual rise of domestic violence awareness shows us that one of the biggest indicators of a family at risk for violence is an inequitable distribution of tasks, and one of the biggest reasons women are reluctant to leave an abusive situation is financial need (arising from not having been self-supporting in their own careers).  While many see those days as idyllic, the “Leave It To Beaver” family constellation was not as frequent as we dream.  Baby boomers who grew up during that time worked hard to change the way this worked, whether it was to compensate for knowing their mother was never fulfilled with her lack of career, whether it was to compensate for their father’s inability to connect with the family, or to release themselves from the traditional requirement to get married before becoming intimate or setting up shared households.   The people who lived through those seemingly idyllic times, worked hard to change the ultimate configurations of their own lives.   

Women have worked very hard to gain recognition in the workplace and we have been, for the most part, successful, taking positions in management and even breaking through the glass ceiling in many ways.  For some reason, we did not immediately adjust household duties to match the new reality that women were not spending full time at home.  About 20-30 years ago, women were all over Phil Donahue (for the youngsters out there, he was a talk popular show host) and Oprah Winfrey shows talking all about how they were now gaining power in the workplace but their husbands were not taking over to do the chores at home.   The lines were drawn in the battle of the sexes of the era, and if a woman wanted to take a turn about being a “mean girl” with her husband, all she had to do was roll her eyes when he started talking about doing chores.  “Mr. Mom”, “Mrs. Doubtfire”, and a host of other movies made it clear that men were only capable of handling household chores in a bumbling, comical and nearly dangerous way.   

                So the modern young husband of the 1970s, 80s & 90s listened & took pains to take responsibility for a reasonable percentage of the work in the household.  There remain some common areas of division of labor.  As I’ve talked to my clients about how their marriages are configured, it seems that men usually handle the car and larger home maintenance duties, women usually handle the baby care and shopping, and there has been a division of labor on the issue of laundry, cooking, cleaning.  Most households no longer expect the same standards of cleaning as was once expected of the homes we grew up in, the weekly dusting and vacuuming may have been put aside in favor of making sure the kids made it to all their extracurricular activities, and we have been more careful in our generation to book our kids for lots of extracurriculars, taking to heart the advice that a busy kid is less likely to get into trouble.  My generation has been known for over-involvement of parents who, rather than tell the kids, “go outside and play”, would hover over them like a helicopter in an effort to make sure nothing bad ever happened. 

In this brave, new world where we have re-defined our expectations of family, the only thing that really divides men and women is the biological function of pregnancy and breast feeding.  Men even have the opportunity to take parental  leave from work to bond with their children as women had been doing for years.  Women can bring home the bacon while men cook it up.  Dads can bathe a child, change their diapers, take their turn in the car pool, and serve as the parent organizer of the kids’ club events.   

                So far, so good.  But we have not gone far enough in changing the expectations associated with gender.  The changes I described have improved the quality of life, but one last vestige of the old system is the marginalization of fathers as having primary importance in their children’s lives.  Nowhere is this problem clearer than when we’re looking at families who are trying to co-parent even after they are no longer romantically linked.  As of the day of separation, many people assume that Mom will have control of what happens with the children.  Some mothers use the opportunity of controlling the children, to continue to exercise control over their ex.  It’s not so surprising that fathers react badly to having their children held hostage, used as little ATM machines or weapons in the relationship war.   

Several questions from AVVO website

One very important divorce survival tip!!!!!

I just saw an old clip of "The View" where Joy Behar was talking about how she got through her difficult divorce and stayed sane by writing down everything SHE did wrong, not by spending her time chronicaling what HE had done wrong. I thought that was brilliant, and I would like to suggest that to every one of my divorcing clients.  Spend your time thinking of what YOU have done wrong, not what the other person did wrong.  Yes, you have to address the other person's wrongdoings when you get to court, you have to tell your lawyer about the other person's wrongdoing.  If you don't, then the other person's wrongdoing could end up in you losing some of the STUFF that you should end up with.

But for the purpose of moving on, of figuring out what is worthy of complaining about and determining whether or not your own position about your ex's wrongdoing is reasonable, figuring out where you have gone wrong is vital.  Looking at your own fault helps you decide whether your ex's acts are forgiveable (like if they did the same as what you did), whether you can improve on your behavior, whether you can bring something more to the table or correct your mistakes the next time around.  Figuring out what you did wrong and are doing wrong on an ongoing basis helps you take responsibility for problems, like an adult does.  People can tell that you are a new, improved version of you.  You don't have to tell them.  With this stuff, it shows through your eyes, and oozes out your pours... it becomes part of your aura, that you have done the right thing, have taken responsibility for your issues, and moved forward.

This is a skill that translates to other areas of life, and therefore it's very valuable to use this opportunity to practice it.  For example, expert suggestions about how to get ahead in the working world contain advice that will use this skill... learn to take responsibility for your work, the negative as well as the positive.  Being the one to get ahead is more than just self-promotion.  It's about being the person in the group who stands up and says, "I messed it up, I'll fix it".  Everyone appreciates someone who will speak up and take responsibility.  You never know how much it's appreciated until years later. 

To do this, you will have to understand the concept of "deferred gratification", of doing something just becuase it's the right thign to do, not becuase it's the easy or fun, or because it gets you an instant reward.  For this task, you need to learn to get your reward internally.  But if you persist in examining your own issues and are willing to wait and accept that it will take a while for any reward to show up, you will find that the reward is much more than you could have hoped for.  The reward for this is self-improvement, peace of mind, future relathioships that do not repeat the same mistakes of your past.  It's a very valuable piece of advice.

Remember it... keep notes of what you did wrong, and stop focusing on what you believe your ex did wrong.  VERY important information.  Thanks Joy.  Here's the clip: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-view-hot-topics-kate-gosselins-kids/2f76cd1506963f8b37f12f76cd1506963f8b37f1-389181015590?q=gosselin+expelled&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR4

Rule 6 on co-parenting: No controlling the other parent

Everyone thinks they have the right to control things that go on in the other parent’s household.  Everyone is wrong.  When you separate from your co-parent, you no longer have the right to control the other parent.  You can insist on following the court-ordered parenting plan, but anything beyond that is by choice.  If it happens during your ex’s time with the child, it’s your ex’s choices. If it happens during your time with the child, it’s your choice.  You cannot choose what your ex will be doing with the children.  So, if you want the child to go to private school, name it in the parenting plan to make sure the other parent complies, and if you want the other parent to pay for part of that school, you need to have that in the parenting plan/child support agreement as well.  If raising the children as vegetarians is important to you, get your ex to sign off on it in the parenting plan, before they decide to be a meat lover.  Anything worth arguing about later should be thought of and spelled out earlier.  During this process, you will learn that you and your ex do not agree on everything, and that you cannot control their choices.  This is an important lesson to learn, and one that will solve a lot of heartache.  

Because you should not be making the other parent’s plans for them, then you should also not schedule activities for the child that take place in the other parent’s time.  Your ex is allowed to choose activities or their own, or they are allowed to choose to do nothing at all when they have the kids.  You cannot insist that the ex take them to a certain place or avoid other places.  You cannot prevent your ex from taking the child to visit friends, grandparents, and new romantic relationships unless it is in the decree or you get a post-decree ruling from a judge on the issue. 
            Your joint co-parent can arrange the haircuts, ear piercings, and food that the child eats with that parent.  They have as much right as you do, to choose the child’s style and clothing.  This is particularly true if they have joint custody, so if you choose to go to war over these items, I guarantee you will be frustrated and disappointed. Learn to cooperate on decisions like this for the sake of the child, or resign yourself to unpleasantness about these life decisions until the child is 18 years old and making those decisions for him or herself.    

Most states do not require parents to pay college expenses, if you want to guarantee payment, you must have it in the settlement agreement.  Unless the decree is from a state which requires it, the judge will not require it without the paying parent’s agreement. 

Your ex cannot tell you who you are allowed to date, and visa versa.  Your ex cannot tell you where you are allowed to live and visa versa.  Your ex cannot tell you what to eat, feed the children, when to do homework, what activities you can or should do with the kids, and visa versa.  It does not matter if you think you have superior knowledge of the children or better parenting skills, you are not allowed to force the other parent to do things that are not in the decree. There are some extreme circumstances where parents feel they must defy the decree or else the co-parent will expose the child to danger (such as when the ex has a new spouse who happens to be a registered sex offender).  In those circumstances, you must go back to court to get a court order changing the parenting plan to fit the new circumstances. 

Controlling the other parent’s behavior is a hard habit to get rid of, if you had a division of labor in the household that put you in charge of organizing the extracurricular activities and dinner menu, and the other parent in charge of the homework.  Now that you are separated, you are not allowed to tell the ex what to sign the kids up for during their time, just like they are not allowed to force you to do homework with the kids in a certain way.  Failures to follow this rule can turn into nasty battles for control of each other and of the kids. 

This does not mean you do not have to inform the other spouse of what you are doing.  Every parent should always know what their child is doing and where they are, as well as how to reach them if there is an emergency, so it’s important to tell the other parent if you’ve moved back to your parent’s house until you can get on your feet, or if you’ve signed them up for piano lessons every Wednesday after school at the music teacher’s house.  You can’t force the other parent to pay for the piano lessons, but at least let them know about it.

If a parent moves, they must still adhere to other portions of the parenting plan until it’s changed in court.  No court prohibits an adult from moving, but the fact that you wanted to or had to move does not change the parenting plan.  Realistically, this means you must go to court to amend the parenting plan (or get your ex to stipulate) if you are moving too far away to maintain the current plan.  Either that, or do not move that far away.  It’s a choice:  either jump through hoops to follow the decreed parenting time, get the decree changed, or choose not to move, it may not be not an easy choice, certainly not as easy as if you were still together and making these decisions together, but that’s what happens when parents split before the children are adults, they must submit their plans to court approval.

I have never known any separated parents who did not find something to worry about, about the other parent’s household, whether it’s the other parent’s friends, new romantic interests, activity choice, extravagant lifestyle, choice of discipline or lack of it, homework, school, clothing, holiday traditions… there is a reason you are split and these reasons are often reflected in such issues.  However, you can either run back to court for a new refinement of the parenting plan on the issue, or you can follow the parenting plan to the letter and let the other parent control things when the children are in the other parent’s care.  There are no other appropriate choices. 

The easiest solution, and the one most separated parents make, is to learn to cooperate for the big issues and let the little ones slide.  I hope you can get to that point if you’re reading this, because the alternative, taking repeated trips to court, is expensive, frustrating, and difficult for all involved. 

Major issues to consider in planning a divorce

I am often asked, "what should I expect in a divorce?" The answer to that question depends upon the type of major issues that your divorce will involve. Very few people have none of these issues, and most people have more than one issue. Determining your issues will help you know what to expect.

1

1.       Children - parenting

For people who have children, questions about ongoing parenting can be the most difficult to answer. Expect to have to cooperate to some extent, to share your children's time (including birthdays and holidays, which can be difficult to negotiate) with the other parent, and to create a schedule. There will be issues of who has the final say on school issues, religion, health, and extracurricular activities. Most parents can get through the basics with the help of a professional, either a mediator or custody evaluator or negotiator. If both parents cannot cooperate on the bigger pieces of the parenting issue, then expect appointment of a professional to help with those decisions. If you cannot come to some agreements with the help of this professional, expect a very long, expensive and troublesome court battle.

2.       Children - ongoing support

Once the decision of who gets the kids and when is made, then each parent will be expected to contribute to their financial support. Each parent will either provide housing, food, and time, or will provide money. In many cases, each parent provides a combination of all of the above. As for the money, every state has a formula for what is required. Most of the formulas require information about your income, the amount of time each parent spends with the child, any special needs that the child has, daycare costs, etc. With this information and the formula, there is little opportunity for variation. Most of the arguments on this part of the case involve arguments over your income, the other parent's income, the children's special needs, and whether other special issues should be accounted for, such as private school, transportation costs to visit a parent out of state, etc. Check with a lawyer in your state for the formula, and other child support related laws, for details.

3.       Property, to include real estate, money, retirement accounts, debts and all the other STUFF

States are either "community property" states, where property accumulated during the marriage (not to include inheritances by one or the other), is split evenly, or they are "equitable distribution" states, where judges consider fairness and may order something other than a 50-50 split. Expect your biggest task at the outset will be to collect a complete list of all the property owned and debts owed. Get as much information as possible so your lawyer can do a complete job. Becoming your own best clerk will save lots of fees at this step. Everything needs to be split. If you cannot decide how to do it, the judge will. The judge's decisions will not always be what you hope for. Whoever gets the house will usually also take the debt associated with it (mortgage). Other debts are counted and split too. Considering whether each will be able to maintain the loans, and re-financing them into the separate spouses' names, will minimize ongoing arguments and expensive post-divorce litigation

4.       Alimony or Spousal Maintenance

These days, most people are not entitled to permanent support. In general, TEMPORARY support may keep things stable while the divorce is being negotiated, PERMANENT support compensates a spouse who becomes permanently unable to be self-supporting by virtue of things that happened during the marriage. REHABILITATIVE support could provide a short term opportunity for the lower earning spouse to get an education or revive their career. The issues to be discussed, therefore, are whether one spouse earns significantly less than the other, whether the marriage caused the difference, whether the marriage's length or circumstances, or the decisions made during the marriage justify making one spouse responsible for supporting the other beyond the end of the marriage. In some states, you should also explore the lifestyle during marriage, who is caring for the children, or other issues. Check with a lawyer in your state to get specific factors relevant in your situation.

5.       Other (infidelity, combining the issues, etc.)

Don’t forget to consider whether to change your name.  This is one of the "etc." issues that some people forget about until months after the divorce is final, and at that point you need to pay an extra fee to make it happen.  You are entitled to have it happen if you choose, but remember to get it done as part of your main divorce.  Asking the clerk of court to re-open your case for this one little change is more expensive than necessary.  They will not do it for free!

Remember that there are interplaying factors in any divorce.  Although the law does not require a certain pattern, often the parent who stays in the house will be the parent who keeps primary control of the kids during the week unless the other parent moves into a large enough place to accomodate the children, close enough to make the trip to & from school relatively similar to the parent who remained in the house.  If one parent has more time with the children, the other will likely be paying more in support.  Although the law officially separates the issues, and the lawyers and judges can compartmentalize each separate issue, it is very difficult to split the issues in your own life.  You are already splitting your entire life in two, your dreams, your hopes, your kids, your stuff, your future and your past. 

You may be tempted to look for ways to bring in information about the fact that your ex cheated on you, or other things that are mostly about the reason for your divorce.  In many instances, the motivations for divorce are entirely irrelevant to the issues in divorce.  In other words, you may be angry over being cheated upon or being treated wrongly for years, but only rarely does infidelity have any relevance to issues of splitting the property, or alimony, or child custody.  If you can learn to separate the issues to handle in the divorce from your motives for the divorce, the same way that the judge will separate them, then you may find it easier and faster to recover from the divorce.  More importantly, separating your motive from your issues will help save money on handling irrelevant issues during your divorce.  In keeping with the theme of this post, expect, if you insist on handling irrelevant issues and combining issues inappropriately during the divorce, that the judge and your lawyer will be frustrated, and the fees you spend will be more than you would if you were not focusing on these things.  I have known people who spent thier entire life savings in looking for ways to make their spouses' infidelity relevant.  They found a few ways to force the issue, embarass the ex, and after the fact, they regretted having spent so much money on the effort. 

If you know these things and plan appropriately, hopefully you can come out of this without losing everything. 

Abuse, Memory, and Evidence

          Some years ago, I was recovering from a bad marriage.  After gaining 100 lbs in the last year of the marriage and making an ill-conceived decision to go blonde, I chopped my hair down to an inch all around and took a much needed vacation with my parents to celebrate their retirement.  I believe I was one of 3 people on the 2 week cruise, whose hair was not yet gray.  One day on vacation, I met the other two.  They were a couple.  The wife’s story involved horrific abuse at the hands of her parents, siblings and her own ex-husband.  She is very in touch with her own history, and chooses not to profit by it.  To my knowledge, she never sought criminal prosecution, revenge or self-aggrandizement.  She only needed peace and the self-respect that had been wrenched from her by her abusers.  She was truly on the path to recovery.  I applaud her choice on how to approach her situation. 

Through the years, I’ve met victims of many different crimes, and I have to say the most healthy survivors seem to be the ones who acknowledge it but choose not to live it on a daily basis.  There was a part in my recovery from my divorce when I made this decision for myself.  I was no longer going to be the woman in charge of the local divorce recovery support group.  I was going to cut them loose and make them find another leader.  I was no longer going to be “the divorced lady” or a victim of any variety.  I was free.  In consulting with clients and potential clients about their court claims, we sit down before initiating a claim, to weigh their potential benefit from going to court against the knowledge that being in court extends the period of time that you must identify yourself as a victim and repeatedly recount the details of your victimization. 

With the growing awareness of family violence, some advocate groups encourage victims to prosecute every wrongdoing to the fullest extent, to join marches and start foundations and disclose your story to all who care to listen, to ruin the abusers.  Some groups insist that women are victims and men are abusers, with very few exceptions.  The truth is that women are just as capable of cruelty, abuse and nastiness, and men are just as capable of being victimized.  The difference between the sexes involves choice of weapon and the reaction to being victimized, the path to recovery and availability of the support system necessary to recover.  However, the fact of being victimized is no different.   In the early years of domestic violence awareness, the news was, “it happens in the best of families”, and the focus was to educate the public that this is a problem that crosses social status.  The new message needs to be that both sexes are equally responsible for abuse, and equally victimized.  Gender is no more of an indicator of ability to control one’s anger and handle it appropriately, than wealth or social status. 

In 40 years of growing awareness of domestic violence and child abuse, some have learned to abuse the system, crying “victim” at every turn.  We hear commonly of parents turned into CPS by people they had an unrelated disagreement with, and everyone knows that even an anonymous CPS complaint automatically generates an investigation whether or not it is a credible accusation.  And while the phenomenon of false domestic violence accusations has been known in the justice system and family court system for decades, the general public is slowly being made aware of false accusations, through infamous public cases.  More and more often, those who have learned to abuse the system that was meant to protect victims, are being exposed for their lies.   There is growing realization of the fact that some people who claim “victim” status are abusing the system.  Every false accusation of abuse cheapens the real ones, and makes the real ones harder to pursue. 

My vacation acquaintance, who was recovering from abuse, had to contend with a public who is wary of false accusations.  She checked her memories with others, to satisfy herself that she was right, because victims of “false memory syndrome” had infamously victimized the people they were accusing.  Well meaning friends, family, advocates, and even therapists, might encourage the imagination of the troubled person, encouraging the image of abuse in places where the troubled person had no actual memory.  In several infamous examples, the high suggestibility of persons with troublesome feelings was shown to result in false accusations of bizarre and nasty abuse.   Prosecutors and other attorneys seeking to show the existence of a pattern of abuse are faced with the problem of proving that the memories of abuse were obtained in a manner not likely to result in false accusations.  Some infamous cases where entire daycare schools were indicted and destroyed on the basis of false accusations, have caused the reins of justice to tighten on the issue of what is admissible evidence in these cases.

My friend has the luxury of having independent proof of the fact that her memories are real.  Her husband has a lot to do with that.  He seems to have some instinct on the issue, and was familiar with false memory syndrome.  He also cared about her enough not to put words in her mouth.  He did not finish her sentences when she was not able to do so for herself.  He did not push her to remember.  He simply waited.  He knew only the tip of the iceberg about what caused her issues, (her previous marriage)  but he did not let his curiosity cause him to push her.  He just loved her and made life safe for her and waited until she was ready and able to remember.  A gal pal would never do this.  Our culture is too full of images of the Sex In the City girls gossiping about their boyfriends over cosmos, or Bette Midler movies about divorcees getting together to find creative ways to get revenge on their exes.  Gal pals, in pretending to cheerlead for each other, have become counterproductive to the therapeutic process.   More about this in another post.

Like a true recovering victim, my vacation friends seems to feel very little need for revenge (at least compared to what most would think she WOULD feel).  The hallmark of a true recovery from a traumatic event is that you have become indifferent to it in most respects.  Just like the opposite of love is “indifference”, the opposite of being a victim is becoming a survivor.   Not a survivor who relives the events over and over through re-telling it to support groups and at marches and public speaking events, but rather the quiet survivor who can rebuild a normal life without symptoms of the previous troubles entering into the new version of normal.  Building a version of “normal” that is more satisfying than any previous version the victim had lived. 

Eventually, after going through a divorce recovery programs and being the facilitator for a few years, my own feelings about my divorce became less intense.  I was no longer a victim and I no longer wanted to be known as “the divorced lady”, so I could not envision myself becoming part of the vociferous group of domestic violence victim advocates who were trying to convince me that I was one of them.  I was never a victim of physical violence and do not choose to be identified as a victim of any other kind of abuse.  I do not hide the things that others would have claimed cause me to be a “victim”, but I do not need to discuss them.  I am recovered.  I wish the same for every true victim out there.  And for those whose “victim” status has arrived by virtue of friends patting them on the back and telling them about how they were victimized, offering to help prove it as a strategy in the divorce, etc… I wish you the best of luck.  The energy it takes to secure your status as a victim can be overwhelming when you’re competing in the memory of the court system participants, with memories of those who came before you with false accusations. 

If you have identified yourself as a victim of abuse, please consult two different professionals, a therapist, who can help you sort out what your friends tell you that you should feel, from your truthful feelings, and a lawyer, who can help you identify pieces of evidence which will be admissible as proof of your status as a victim, and help you decide whether your status as a victim has any value in the particular court case you choose to pursue.  Stay tuned for more information about cases where your status as a victim may be entirely irrelevant to your case, which will also be the subject of another post.

How to research a professional before hiring them

                What I find when I am researching the background of an expert, a salesman, a piece of information, is that it’s relatively easy to look pretty slick and experienced on the internet, just like in television advertisements.  Put a suit on a nice looking person, and you have a lawyer.  Whether that lawyer has a clue on how to handle themselves in court is another question.  Give them a good website developer or commercial producer, and they look like they have a clue… but that is the hired help that has a clue… the advertiser looks good, but do they have the ability to process the complex issues of your case and adjust their presentation when the judge indicates an interest in a different issue than the one you’ve prepared for?  Does the attorney assigned to your hearing have time to spend with your file before they walk into the courtroom, or have you hired a law office with 50 attorneys who treat your case like an assembly line?  Has the person you trust because they sound so good, experienced, or are they just very young and good at computer networking, website production, etc?  Are they producing their newsletter articles on their own and out of their own knowledge and experience, or are they purchasing their newsletter articles from some media or advertising source to make themselves look more substantial? 

                With a contractor, you see the same thing.  Look at their portfolio of completed projects.  Is it the same 3 projects depicted for a business that claims 20 years of experience?  Is this contractor skilled in only one thing?  If they re-design kitchens, and you want to build a kitchen addition to your house … have they ever done a kitchen that is a whole addition to a house such as what you are seeking?   Be aware of the skills needed for the job you have available and check the applicants against those requirements.  Do not simply listen to a good sales pitch and look at a pretty picture and believe that it will translate to the job you have.  Check to see if they know how to add foundation, have they ever re-routed plumbing, do they have the licensed professionals to get the electrical work done properly?  And make sure they pull the permits (which means a little more money, but ensures that at least some third party will do an inspection of the job). 

                Some types of services, you can’t even rely upon them saying that they’re a member of some professional guild or licensed by some licensing agency, if you have never heard of the agency or researched it, how can you be sure that this is the license you want?  The most current example of this that I researched recently was personal trainers.  You can find someone who is generally athletic appearing who has completed a 2 week course for their nationwide chain of gyms and is a member of one type of certifying group, or you can find someone who has a degree in physiology and holds other licenses, belongs to other organizations.  The variety of types of certifications and available in some career is mind-boggling and consumers are rarely able to decipher whether the certification is worthwhile or relatively meaningless.  

                Look at the resume of the person you’re getting your information from:  when did they go to school or get their background?  Some older workers drop the dates off of their resumes so that people will not think they’re old-fashioned, but you can see years worth of actual experience and publications on their resume.  However, younger workers will have the dates off their resumes in the hopes that you will not realize that they just graduated law school a few months ago and the only time they stepped into a courtroom was as a student.  This baby lawyer’s website may very well look much more polished than any grizzled old barrister’s, but you can be sure that underneath the bravado, they don’t have a clue what they’re doing when they go to court.  Anyone can put on a good show for you, but you want someone with substance.

                 Does the person who has a slick website and extensive background, have any background, training or certifications in the thing they are proposing to do for you?  I find this to be a particular problem now, as former mortgage brokers are finding that they cannot find business and are re-creating themselves as debt negotiators.  They say they have 30 years experience in “the financial industry” or “with loans and banks”, and they suggest that they are expert in debt negotiation.  They don’t tell you that their real expertise is in marketing, finding clients, creating an impressive online presence.  I have had clients pay thousands to debt negotiators such as this, who are trying to get out of the contracts now that the negotiation has failed and left them in worse condition than before, and they are coming to me to find loopholes in the contracts.  Loopholes are rare, refunds are rarer.  Often, you are dealing with someone who has never set foot in your state, let alone been licensed to do business there.  Even if it’s your neighbor, I have to ask if you knew them well enough to know they were a mortgage broker, what made you think they could do this debt negotiation thing? 

    One last issue:  know the services you are going to get from a professional.  Many divorce lawyers these days are offering litigation (traditional practice), mediation (a series of conferences to arrive at an agreement for divorce), or collaborative practice (referrals to several different professionals to resolve all the problems as best as possible without the nastiness of the traditional divorce... the "cadillac" of divorce services).  If you are looking at a litigator, are you looking at one who is better with property valuation or with child custody disputes.  Again, know what services you need and check the professionals you are considering agaisnt your needs.  Don't just hire the first person with a slick website and comforting manner.  Don't just hire the first person with an aggressive, "bulldog" manner.  Ask the advice of the professional you are considering, and figure out if their suggestions meet your needs, before you move forward. 

Due Diligence versus slick internet presence

Be careful of how you research information and professionals in this information age

People today have wonderful opportunities to get information at our fingertips.  In ancient times, when I was growing up, my parents used to send me to the library or at least to the encyclopedia to find out important things.  Parents today are suggesting, “google it”, and the internet-connected telephone that the teen carries can instantly give them a briefing on the topic they were asking about, whether it’s a topic of importance, or just a question of whether a celebrity is pregnant. 

                The problem with getting information this quickly and easily is that you don’t always know the source.  Wikipedia, as large as it’s variety of information might be, is created with a collaborative process that leaves you wondering if you’ve just read the information from the horses’ mouth, the person who researched it, the person hired to advertise for it, or the person who is trying to slander it.  Is your reporter biased by any political or personal motive?  Is the reporter experienced in the topic they’re talking about or are they just spouting off at the mouth over something they just heard on the news a minute ago?

                About a half hour ago, I heard a radio show where Nick Clooney (a renowned reporter, and father of George) talked about this topic as it relates to reporters and blogs.  His comment was that the reporters of his day, in order to be successful, had to get out of their offices and experience things, get some bruises, talk to the people in the trenches (literally, he was talking about reporting on war issues as well as general reporting, and had given an example of reporters actually squatting side by side with men in a foxhole to get the information they were reporting about).  He pointed out the difference between that real life experience, versus sitting in your mother’s basement with your computer, blogging about something you heard about, but did not experience.  The comment I remembered that Clooney made was that these style of “reporters’” knowledge was “a mile wide and an inch deep”, meaning that these people fancied themselves to have valuable comments on nearly everything, but know very little about anything, giving the content of their reporting a very shallow quality, meaningless despite being articulate and prolific. 

                The irony of a blog about being careful of bloggers, about commenting that people are blogging about facts they heard a minute ago, stating that I was inspired by this radio program that took place about a half hour ago, is intentional.   I hope everyone reading can say they picked up on the irony.   This is a tactic I’ve used in trial, leading jurors to come to their own obvious conclusion by giving them the information, while not spoon feeding the conclusion.  In trial, it keeps the jurors interested, to feel that they’re part of the process of investigating an issue, and then when I later help them draw the conclusions by saying it out loud, it’s simply to catch the few who may have missed the point.  Now that you hear my caution, read on to find out whether I have depth to my discussion, or whether I am just an old fuddy-duddy, spouting nastiness about the internet… 

                My irony, and my point, is to remind others that it is important to determine whether an information source is worth listening to, or whether it should be dismissed as too shallow to matter.  Just because someone agrees with you and is eloquent about it, does not mean they have the background needed to give you good information.  If information is what you’re looking for, look behind what is being said, to figure out how the knowledge came into the hands of the speaker/reporter.  I am not saying that there is no value to reading bloggers have to say when they are pretending expertise, but have none.  Sometimes it’s very helpful to see what others are saying about a topic, or hear what words someone else has used to describe it.    For my purposes, for example, reviewing what a person with no experience on the topic has to say is a good measure of how my jurors will be thinking about it if I have to explain it in court.  Also, seeing what the blogs and advertisers say about a product will help me understand how my clients, who are often more savvy than the average person, got caught by a scheme, scam, or poorly conceived contractual obligation.  Granted, if my clients were really savvy, they would have consulted an attorney such as myself before taking the leap rather than after they need to be rescued from it, but that’s a topic for a different post… let’s look at my particular experience that would give me more than a random person’s knowledge about how to research an issue…

For me, this particular knowledge came into my possession by years of advising others on how to recognize a scam, usually after they have been scammed.  Hindsight is 20/20, but also valuable to use in order to avoid being scammed again… so with the old adage “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” in mind, even if we cannot recover from the current mistake in trusting the wrong person or making the wrong deal, I walk my clients through the process of figuring out what was wrong with the deal so that they will recognize it before it happens next time around.  On occasion, I consult with a client before they enter into a deal, and I need to explain the concept of “due diligence”.  “Due diligence” is a very important term in some legal areas, and someone who fails to do “due diligence” in those areas may find themselves on the wrong end of a very expensive lawsuit.  In other areas ”due diligence” is simply a good idea before making a decision that could have financial implications.  Finally, in matters of everyday life (that gossip about whether a celebrity is pregnant, getting married, or died of an overdose), “due diligence” simply means that you won’t run around repeating malicious gossip, but rather have sought the most reliable source possible before making your conclusions.  Your own credibility is at stake… are you the person who always cries “wolf” to your friends about the latest nonsense you heard “somewhere”, or are you the ones who, when you speak, they listen?  Due diligence in checking out tidbits of information is what makes the difference. 

 I have also learned that going to court in any opposed case is more successful if I research opposing counsel.  Are they a baby lawyer with a super-slick website, or is it a grizzled old dude whose most high tech equipment is his 20 year old fax machine?  Is opposing counsel well-thought of, or have they had lawsuits and complaints against them on a regular basis.  Due diligence is not only important in hiring lawyers, it's important in hiring anyone, selecting a tenant, choosing a business to purchase.  Beware of turning down a professional for the fact that someone did complain against them previously.  What you want to do, when you find that there has been a complaint against a professional’s license, is check with the licensing agency to find out what the character of the complaint was.  If you are looking at hiring a contractor, and they have been in business for 30 years with one complaint against them 5 years ago, and that one complaint was that the color used was moss green instead of pea green and a bit of color was splashed onto the driveway as they cleaned up for the day, and the licensing body's punishment for the validated complaint was to send the contractor out to repaint and use some paint remover on the driveway, you should think differently about that potential contractor than you think about the one who is currently awaiting hearing on possible suspension of his contracting license for taking five different clients' money and never finishing the jobs.

Inevitably, no matter what type of professional you’re looking to hire, a contractor, a lawyer, a psychologist, a tutor or financial planner, undoing a mistake after the fact is often difficult, if not impossible, so there is value in completing your “due diligence” in any hiring or contracting decision, rather than just letting yourself be swayed by a pretty website and slick promises of high quality service.

Rule 4 on co-parenting: do not let your child feel rejected

Do me a favor, please: whenever you hear the phrase, "he (or she) left us", please correct the speaker.  Or if you hear it in a movie, make note of it and make sure everyone knows that this is not good parenting.
Let's start by assuming that it's a true statement, that the other parent said, "I don't want to be a parent any more" and walked away.  It is uncommon, but it does happen.  How awful is it for the children to have to hear reminders that their primary residential parent's life would be better if the children disappeared?  How awful to have their first experience of rejection being from a parent?  Why would a parent want the child to be reminded of this awful circumstance?  This is one of those things you should try to protect the children from.  They will notice that the other parent does not show up for parenting time or holidays or any other things.  They don't need to have the remaining parent rub their nose in the rejection.
But more often than not, the statement "he (or she) left us" is a lie.  The other parent rejected the spouse, not the children.  The other parent may disagree with the spouse's parenting ideas, or may have simply wanted to avoid argument, but never intended to let the children get hurt from the separation.  Very often, the absent parent knows that the primary parent would use the children as weapons and believes that as long as they stay away, this is less likely, and therefore they believe that their absence is less harmful to the children than the anger that comes with their presence.  It's often a mistaken idea, but someone in the midst of a very difficult situation with a spouse, who has previously trusted the spouse with the children, is likely to believe that the spouse will not hurt the children... they know that the spouse will hurt them if possible, but not the children.  In the situations where the spouse is saying "he (or she) left us", the absent spouse's faith in the primary parent is misplaced.
Here's how I advise parents who pop out with that sound bite without a good foundation for it:
I know your ex is a jerk.  There is a reason that you are separate now.  But you picked that person as a co-parent.  You picked that person to give your love to.  There was a time in your life when you were willing to cooperate with them and felt it was in the best interests of the kids to spend time with that person.  And they made that commitment to you.  And that commitment has changed.  Their status as a parent as not changed, only their commitment to you.  It hurts, but their separation with you says nothing about their feelings towards the kids. 
   Interestingly, many parent's relationship with their children improves after a separation.  This phenomenon is easily explained if you realize that they weren't intending to be bad parents, they were simply removing themselves from the anger that arose every time you were in the room together, and unfortunately, that meant that they did not see the children as often.  Remember, IF THEY WITHDREW FROM FAMILY EVENTS BEFORE THE SEPARATION, THAT WAS LIKELY MORE ABOUT STOPPING THE UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATIONS THAN ABOUT REJECTING THE KIDS.  The person who was rejected was you, not the children!!!   Rejection hurts, and I hate rubbing your nose in it, but understand that every time you say "he (or she) left US", you are rubbing your children's noses in the rejection, and your children are younger and less emotionally able to handle the rejection.  As much as that hurts, try to understand it and hold the children away from your anger about the rejection. 
   Do not tell anyone that the other parent does not care about the kids.  That is not for you to judge.  You are not a credible judge of your ex's motives in anything, including their motives in parenting.  You can be sure that they care about the children as much as they did when they lived with you.  But they have to show their care in a different way.  Living under a different roof, they have to change their parenting style, and you are no person to judge whether the changes that they've made are appropriate.  You are separated as romantic partners and you simply no longer have any right to comment on your ex's choices. 
   If you privately feel that they are not caring enough, do not let the kids hear it.  Kids don't need to hear from you that you predict the other parent will be late to pick them up for parenting time.  When you say it, it implies that they don't love the children.  Do not ever let the children feel unloved.  Do not ever suggest to them that the other parent's bad habits about being timely or reliable are a reflection of rejecting the children. 
   You have enough to deal with, with your separation and a whole new life.  Some parts of it will be good (eventually, if not now), but it's for you to deal with, alone.  Do not compound it by bringing the children into the misery.  Let the relationship they have with the other parent, whether it's a good relationship or a bad one, develop without making your opinion known. 

The difficult foster/adopt situation

   In divorces, we see malicious parenting from time to time, where one parent tries to turn the kids against the other parent.  It's more competitive parenting than cooperative parenting, and there has been some controversy over what to do about it.  Most birth parents have som eawareness that it's not good to try to use the kids against the other parent, but when it comes to foster parents, this is not necessarily so clear.  Too often, I find myself having to talk a foster parent out of working against the birth parent and their reunification plan.
   The foster parents in this situation think they have an exception to the general rule that children should not be made to believe that their DNA comes from flawed stock.  A basic understanding of heredity is practically instinctive in our society, as we start from babyhood in telling a child that they have their mother's nose, their father's hair, and their grandpa's artistic ability.  The best childhood is one where the child has an idyllic belief that their parents are perfect.  Bursting the bubble that Mom and Dad are not perfect is best left as long as possible, in most circumstances.   
   However, in many foster situations, the child has come into foster care by virtue of a situation where it is inescapeable that their parent has a flaw.  Everyone knows the child's birth parent's flaws, and it's demeaning, embarassing and frightening for the children.  If the foster parents want to view themselves as better than the birth parents, they don't mind pointing out the birth parent's flaws and actively opposing reunification.  Hopefully they are doing this out of earshot of the kids, but being kids, they will be eavesdropping about anything that involves themselves and their family.  And even if they don't say it out loud, if the foster parents believe that the children's parents are fatally flawed and incapable of improvement, it comes through in how they handle their fostering.
   So many foster parents want to adopt.  A few are doing it for other reasons, but in every situation where I've been consulted where the foster parent is certain that they are the best influence on the child and the parent should be withheld from the child at all costs, it has been one of the situations where the foster parent is hoping for a long term relationship with the child, a hope that is contrary to letting the birth parent improve thier situation and reunify with teh child.  The foster parents in this situation are certain that it is a bad thing for the foster agency to get counseling and treatment for the birth parent, encourage visits between the birth parents and the children, and create a reunification plan.
  Unfortunately, this is a mistaken belief.  if the birth parents can be rehabilitated and have the motivation to do the work to get there, then even if it disrupts a happy foster family environment, even if it puts the kids back in a very low income situation, it is best for the children to know that the people who provided the heredity to them, are not fatally flawed.  A foster parent who undermines birth parents is engaging in a variation on the divorce wars with an evil custody battle.  Trashing birth parents in a foster situation is easier than in a divorce sitaution because in a foster sitaution, there is a government agency has stepped in to remove the child from the parent and given it to the foster parent.  Some people take this as proof that the foster parent has superior parenting ability, and therefore that if they want to interfere with the foster agency's plan to reunify the kids with the birth parents, that this is their right.  It is now. 
  But how do I advise a foster parent who is smugly claiming to me that the foster agency is wrong and must be prevented from letting the child visit with the birth parent?  It helps to acknowledge that the foster parent clearly has more skills that the child needs right now, but that the job of fostering requires them to support the child's needs, and the need for the possibility that their birth parent is salvageable, is important.  The child needs some things from the birth parent, and it is the foster parent's job to let the professionals, the social workers, judges, therapists, determine how much the birth parent is able to provide those things.  I explain that the foster parent must encourage this, and to do otherwise is to show that they lack the one most basic parenting instinct, the instinct to protect the child from harm... in this case, the harm of believing that their DNA, their heritage, is flawed.  I explain that if their goal is to adopt, the way to make it happen is not to oppose the foster agency and judges who will be making the decisions on termination of parental rights. 
    Finally, I explain that it is not a matter of letting the government choose what is best, but rather of keeping the government out of our personal lives, and therefore only removing children from the custody of people who will cause harm.  I explain that it's a matter of figuring out whether the birth parents are capable of raising children without damaging them, but otherwise allowing those birth parents to make the decisons on how to raise thier own children. 
   It is a fine line that a person has to walk, who takes care of someone else's children while that someone else is having problems.  You want to be the best possible parent, and yet, that role is not clear.  By the time you get to know the kids as a foster parent, you are too close to be an objective evaluator of the birth parents.  You may collect and supply information to the experts who make the decisions, but otherwise, you must defer to the experts.  And if you cooperate and work together as a team, rather than fighting them and disagreeing with every move they make, it is much more likely that the RIGHT thing will happen for this specific child in this specific situation. 
   If you are the right person for this child's life, it will happen, but only if you let it, not if you force it, and certainly not if you harm the child by treating the child's birth parents like they are flawed, incompetent, and not good providers of DNA.  The foster parent becomes a true parent when they are willing to do what's best for the child, even if that means letting the child go.  What it all boils down to is that the foster parent will be enough of a parent to adopt only after they conclude that they are not perfect and that someone else can and should make the decision of which parents the child should have.  It's one of those situations where letting go of control is the thing that ultimately gets you what you want.
   Isn't that the way it always is when love is involved?

Rule 3 on co-parenting: Beware of texts

    These days, text messaging is common.  The majority are inane little updates on where you are or what you're doing, how to meet up later or how much you like each other.  Short, sweet and to the point.  It's the perfect communication for the beginning of a romantic relationship where you don't want to seem like you're too eager and are not in need of anything more than just a "thnkng of u" type message.  And they are good for busy parents who need to coordinate the carpool and the pick up, what's for dinner and could you bring home some milk.... easy, short, sweet. 
    It's a shorthand where 3 letters can carry a world of meaning.  But none of it is good when a relationship goes sour and the code is angry.  It used to be that you could walk away and cool off before saying something that you'd regret.  But no longer.  If you think better of what you're saying to your spouse or your soon to be ex or your co-parent ... and you try to walk away... these days, you're likely to be chased down with a series of angry shorthand, accusing you of all manner of nastiness, making all kinds of veiled (and explicit, in shorthand) threats.  If you are wise, you will not respond, but failure to respond is not taken kindly.  In this information age, if we do not answer the phone on the third ring, if we let it go to voice mail, if we do not respond immediately to texts and within a day to e-mails, we are being disrespectful to the person who tried to reach out and touch us with their communication. 
  I text on occasion, but my disagreement with texts is what I've seen in divorce and custody cases.  If you choose no longer to be life partners with your co-parent, then there is bound to be some anger, and with anger come misunderstandings.  If a misunderstanding can develop in person, then the misunderstandings created by the shorthand of texting are multiplied exponentially.  With a text, every punch of the button can be digging the pit of anger deeper and deeper to a point where productive work as partners in parenting is no longer possible, at least for now.  And you never want to be the one who made co-parenting impossible, as this is often one signal to the judges that you should spend less time with the children.  You want to be the one who kept the peace, who tried, who did not make it worse.   
   While texting is cute and interesting during a courtship, and informative during a workng partnership, it breaks down when anger and resentment start creeping in and causing the relationship to deteriorate.  There is a right way and a wrong way to do texting in divorce and custody issues.  Like with every separate co-parenting issue, keeping the emotions in check is the better choice.  Go back to the "I am here, where RU?" texts.  They are perfect, and sometimes necessary, when making decisions on where to pick up the child, who is available to pick up a sick kid from school, or what is the schedule this evening.   
  The wrong way to text, and the ones you have to beware of, are the angry ones, the accusing ones, the ones that threaten to withhold the kids forever from each other, to kidnap the kids if the other parent does not cooperate, all those things that are so tempting and at the tip of your tongue, but better left unsaid because you do not REALLY mean them.  Worse is if your new romantic partner gets wind of the text war and decides to impersonate you and send a responsive text to your ex, that you didn't even know got sent (yes, I've seen that happen, too). 
  Expect these texts to create problems, to increase the anger and make co-parenting more difficult.  Expect them to show up in court and expect the possibility that the texts used against you will show you to be a jerk, and will have enough foundation to get admitted into evidence.  Expect the texts that you want to use against your ex will be questionable, difficult to decipher, and lacking in foundation so the judge might refuse to hear them entirely.  Worse, expect that when you counted on a text to verify that you did pick up the kids on the day that you're being accused of leaving them abandoned in the school yard until well after dark, that this is the text that will not be available to you 3 months later when you try to find it. 
   E-mail is much better for this.  It provides a more clear record.  You can take the time to spell out things rather than talk in shorthand, and a whole converstaion thread can be printed up without messages being lost in the shuffle quite as easily.  And you are not counting on a telephone company record.  You can keep the record on your own.
   Be aware, if something said via text is relevant to your case in court, you probably need an attorney to present it.  Developing an adequate foundation for the admissibility of texts, particularly when you have limited funds for subpoenaes for the phone company, is a difficult task, not for the feint of heart, and better left to someone who has had a good course in "evidence" as well as coutinuing education on laying legal foundations, and admissibility of new technology in the courtroom.  It is not enough for you to review the exceptions to the hearsay rule and determine that this falls under an exception as an admission of a party-opponent.  There are other foundational issues that must be laid before you get to that point in court.
   Which is not to say that bad texts from your ex cannot be great for your case.  Sometimes, bad texts have been the lynchpin of my case, and they pass or fail on the basis of how well we were able to collect foundational evidence.  A truly evil series of texts, clearly threatening to kidnap the kids or to hold them hostage to payment of money, is a wonderful way to prove your point.  But if your best evidence is text messages, you want a backup plan.
   I advise all my co-parents to try to develop an e-mail habit.  Check your e-mail every day.  Make sure the kids don't have access (don't have your password).  If there is something worth informing your co-parent about, write a draft, go to lunch, then re-read it to make sure it's informational and not emotional, before you hit the send button.  And avoid texts except for when there is an immediate need, such as that you're late for a pickup because of traffic, or the kid forgot his tuba at the other parent's house so is there a way to bring it to the school before band practice in a half hour? 
  And save every last one of them, forever, in a reliable file.  No need to print it out if you have a backup drive or cloud.  Yahoo is great for that, or any of the off-site free e-mail options.  Just get yourself a file labled "co-parenting" and move all e-mails to and from your ex to that file, so that until the kids are all 18 years old, you will be able to show if your ex is being reasonable or if you are, and 10 years from now, when your ex claims that you did not do something, you can prove that you did... (or visa versa).  Texts just can't do that.

Rule 2 on co-parenting: find a way to communicate

    When the relationship was good, you developed a private shorthand, via talking, text and e-mail.  Over time, it broke down and you now have misunderstandings and disagreements and anger.  You may have clammed up or you may have been louder, you may have avoided being together just to avoid arguing and unpleasantness.  You may have spent energy pretending that everything was all right.  Separating often solves this.  I know a group of divorcees who call it the "no contact rule".  If you can manage "no contact" it works well for a separating couple.  Each can forget their angry self and resolve their internal issues that created the problem, get some distance and move on.
    Unfortunately, if you have children, you cannot completely sever communication.  You MUST find a way to communicate, and you cannot allow your children to feel the anger between you and interpret it as being cuased by themselves.  You need to understand that it does not matter how often you say, "this is not your fault, honey", if the argument is over child support, the kids know that an argument that would not have taken place if they had not been there.
   Do not kid yourself into believing that the kids never heard you because you were on the phone, in another room, they were asleep or glued to a video game, etc.  Kids are curious, especially if it's about themselves or their family that is breaking up.  They eavesdrop.  Please also understand that they will misunderstand most of what they hear, and will fill in the blanks in very bad ways.  Their world is falling apart and they have no control or knowledge.  It does not help to try to tell them everything.  Being totally open about the damaging things that happen to you during a divorce damages them.  And no child should ever be exposed to details of thier parents' intimate life, which will become an issue even if you do not think it was part of the problem.  The other parent might have, and it is not fair for you to "tell all" about your side of things if you expect the other side to keep the kids from knowing their own take on things.  For you to "tell all" from your perspective invites the other side to tell all, also.  And if you were not in the midst of the anger, you'd realize that "telling all" is really bad for the kids.  It would be one of those bazillion things you do as a parent, that you recognize is a mistake only years later.  Even if you disagree and think your kids are special enough to handle it and your kids need to know this stuff, at this moment, you are not a good judge of which parts of the angry times is something they can handle and understand.  The only solution is to keep the information entirely out of thier hands ot the biggest exent possible. 
   Don't think that if you get together with family and friends for "venting" and "support", outside of the house, that it will not get back to them.  It will.  Your parents will not be as careful as you are about not talking in front of them.  Ditto for your friends.  Worse, your neighbors and the kids' friends' parents will talk and thier own kids will hear about it and will report it to your kids, not usually in a nice way.  It will get back to your kids eventually. 
    Don't fight in front of them (be careful about this, as the only time you see each other any more is when the kids are there), don't leave the divorce paperwork in any place where they can find and read it.  Share with the kids on a "need to know" basis.  And define what they need to know, to a very narrow class of things.  They need to know where they'll be spending the night on any given day.  They need to know who will help with the homework and where they're eating dinner.  They need to know that both parents love them.  They need to know that they're loved enough that both parents will show up at their special events, and that both parents care enough not to do evil things at public events that will embarass them (in any way that they'd not be embarassed by loving parents).  They do not need to know if the support check is late or if Mom cheated on Dad.
   Since most people are only able to communicate in a negative way during this crazy time, it seems the easiest response would be to just cut out communicating.  Yet, as easy as it might seem, moving forward without communicating about the kids is not appropriate.  The children need both parents, and their needs are not met when one of the parents doesn't know what is going on in thier lives (at school, at the doc's office, with their friend's), because the other parent refuses to pass the information along. 
    There are ways to communicate that will minimize conflict, and ways that will maximize it. We want to avoid the ways that maximize it and maximize the ways that minimize it (wrap your mind around that one and I'll be impressed).
   E-mails are perfect.  You get a record of what was said and when, you have the chance to edit before hitting "send", and you can be very clear and detailed.  You can prioritize them and handle them according to your schedule, not the other parent's.  Most importantly, everyone can get a password-protected e-mail address for free so the kids cannot snoop.  If you do not have e-mail available in your life already, get a free address and get familiar with the computer banks at your local library to check in at least daily, just in case.
   Text messages are a bad idea.  Texts are short, shorthand, and easy to misunderstand.  People who text frequently will dash one off and hit the send button without thinking, and expect immediate response, as if every text has some urgency and is worthy of interrupting the other parent's personal and work schedule.  And records of texts are hard to get, even harder to understand months later, because of the shorthand used (take it from someone who has tried to trace old text conversations of clients who insist that their old conversation proves that the ex was wrong... e-mails are much better as records of what really happened). 
   For young children who cannot read, passing a notebook back and forth in the bag they carry from your house to the ex's & back, can work. 
    Be very careful, whatever communication method you choose, to be consistent and positive with the other parent.  The separation has taken place, there is no point for more anger: if you want reconciliation, angry words will not make that happen; if you don't want reconciliation, angry words are no longer necessary... it's over, you're split.  If you can't resolve an issue, no need for nastiness, simply put your requests in writing in the most persuasive way possible, and if the other person will not agree, take them back to court or to the mediator.  This is not something to use as a threat, "If you don't I'll drag you back to court", simply do it.  Get it over with.  Court and mediators and parenting coordinators are here to make the decisions when there is a disagreement about anything worth disagreeing over.  Make use of these opportunities rather than falling into old habits of trying to manipulate the other person into agreeing to you out of frustration or being pestered to death.  Ask, explain why you think it's important, and then if the other parent does not handle things to your liking, go back to court. 
   To keep the kids from listening to your conversations, keep the conversations to a minimum.  The only time you are together any more is when the kids are with one or the other of you, so talking is always dangerous.  Even if you can trust yourself not to get crazy, can you trust the other parent? 
  Find a new way to communicate and make that a new habit, so that your recent habits that created the split are not so easy to fall back on.  Good luck and feel free to contact me if you need more suggestions.