[The first two messages in this file were sent as physical mail. Similarly, messages at the end have been sent by fax by way of the divorce attorneys.] Ann, On 01/01/95 you wrote: >And then there was the, "I'll pay whatever I can to make sure my kids >have what they need, but I'll not be compelled.... (and I couldn't make >out the end, dammit)" In other words, you never had any occasion to doubt that I would support my children. While I'm guaranteeing Meredith's tuition, your boyfriend is trying to weasel out of his commitments to his REAL daughter, whom he has abandoned. Moreover: >The whole conversation made me *extremely* nervous. Right now, Greg has >no resources, no easy way to get out, and he's not very good at getting >things done. It will take him some time to mobilize what resources he >has access to. I'm not going to wait for him to do that. If I get the >green light, I'm getting the kids out of here. I'll figure out some >way to get our stuff after that. That is, you had no fear that I might sneak up on you and fall on you in your sleep. Your fear was that I might catch on and get divorce papers filed before you could kidnap my children. (Funny: I read your flyers from "Chrysalis" and discovered that by their standards I was a battered husband: virtually a prisoner, isolated from my friends and family, eavesdropped upon, etc.) The word "penniless" appears nowhere in the Email, nor do your other claims. To my knowledge, the first appearance of that word is in Fromm's summation to Bethany Hicks. I can't fault you for adhering so stridently to your legal strategy, but it's a bit rich to expect me to toe your imaginary line. But: I sincerely regret arguing with you again today on the telephone. It doesn't get us anywhere. The children don't need the poison in their lives. I surely don't need it in mine. I'm sure the same is true for you. And: I want to repeat my offer to take care of the children. Assuming you end up working 9-5 with a commute, Cameron would have a long, hard day in day-care and Meri would be stuck for a long time at school. I purposely found an apartment that is very close to both schools. Moreover, I engineered this place to engage and delight both children. For example, both big patios give Cam a lot of space to ramble in. Both children have asked me to put desks for them in my office, so they can "work" with me, and I told them I would. Knowing where I was headed, I've been recasting my business to make less from deadline work and more from custom and commerical software. The point is that my schedule is very flexible and I would have no problem at all dealing with Cam and picking up Meredith. You get the best quality care you can obtain, plus meals and transportation. And the price is right. Please let me know what you want to do. True fact: I miss my children. I missed them horribly for 3-1/2 months, but it was a hole in my life that I'd grown used to. Now that they're back, I keep looking for them and I can't find them. Their absence calls itself to my attention in every moment. --GSS PS: If you send Email to me, send it to this address. CompuServe is making a celebrity of me, but I'm not there much. "gswann@primenet.com" is sufficient. Ann, I want to cover this ground, and I don't know how to do it except to do it. I'm not trying to be hurtful, but I need to be frank in a way that may not always be pleasant. You have my apologies in advance. I hope you can put aside your anger, resentment, vengefulness, etc., and look at this situation rationally. You have good occasion, in my opinion, for introspection, and good time. I think if you consider the things I have to say objectively, you will agree that the argument I outline here is sound. What I am writing about is this: The best interest of the children is to put them in my custody. The children need me like the trees need the sun, and I know you've noted the change in their behavior since your return to Arizona. What they are is what I am, and there is nothing that comes out of their mouths that didn't start in mine. Much of what comes out of _your_ mouth, in the job of being a parent, originates with me. It is no stain on you to observe that I am very, very good at being a parent, very good, particularly, at getting the children to reach for more and more of the passion of life. What _would_ be a stain, I think, is to _refuse_ to observe that I am by far the better parent to raise two very bright, potentially astounding but potentially troublesome children. I'll be covering this in greater detail, but there are some other things I want to talk about first. I. Brutalization in the past Until the Spring of last year, I would have rated your performance as a parent as good but not great. You did things I didn't like, and your priorities didn't always seem straight to me, but, overall, you were okay. I was very concerned - still am - about your inability to control your temper, but I felt that the children were safe so long as I was there to mitigate the consequences. But since last year you have demonstrated in a significant number of ways that you cannot contain your own emotional needs to the extent necessary to be a good parent. Shouting at and striking the children is sufficiently brutal that you ought to put them in my custody on that basis alone. When we consider the incredible stunts you've pulled since last April, your position becomes untenable. * You entered into an adulterous affair with an adulterer. You felt compelled to betray your most fundamental principles and tell an amazing number of outrageous lies. You rationalized this behavior by reference to your troubled emotional state, but you unwittingly raised this question: what _won't_ you do in pursuit of relief? * You consumated your adultery by defrauding me, my father, and by abandoning our children. Despite the claims of your attorney, I did not know what you were up to, which is why I asked for phone numbers of where you'd be the night before you left. And it's why you'd lied to me and the children about where you'd be, and why you'd instructed your sister to lie to me about where you were. You know this, but you keep trying to lie your way out of your web of lies. From my point of view, what is important is that you deliberately hid yourself from the children. * We know now that you are capabale of this monstrous act. What assurance can you offer that it won't be repeated? Knowing that you have lied endemically, why would you expect to be believed? * Thus: you deliberately sneaked away from your children and your husband in order to indulge yourself for the weekend with your paramour. At this point, obviously, your affair was more important to you than either your family or your conscience. But even here there was an honorable thing to do, and you didn't do it. Even though you knew then and know now that the right thing for you to have done was to find an apartment and separate yourself permanently from the children you had already abandoned, you insisted upon returning and usurping them by the vilest of means. * After I put you out of the house, you lied outrageously to obtain an Order of Protection. You had the police eject me from my home _while my children watched_. You did this as a legal pretext, knowing I was no threat to you or them, in order to make it easier for you to usurp custody and exchange one man for another while evading the consequences of your deceit, betrayal and your abandoment of the children. You lied again when you assured me that that same order of protection had been rescinded; in fact, it hadn't. * As a legal pretext, you brutalized the children by putting yourself into a woman's shelter. This was a shameless and repulsively self-serving act, and Meredith pays the butcher's bill for it to this day. * After my accident, you deliberately made war on the children's coping strategies. For example, when Cameron was "fixing Daddy" with the red Power Ranger, you had to go out and buy the yellow one, so as to brutally confuse him: is Daddy okay like Mommy, or is Mommy just as hurt as Daddy? Why should Cameron have a way - a way he found on his own! - of dealing with tragic, incomprehensible events if it makes you jealous? * Likewise, when the children needed to see me getting better, you set about to supplant me in their lives. Cameron, in particular, got the message that people are interchangeable to you. * You ripped my children away from their father, from their home, and from their lives merely because you couldn't contain your lust for your boyfriend. Despite yor lawyer's facile claims and your own clumsy performance, this was just another matter of expedience for you. You know that you had no financial worries; the deal we were negotiating so acrimoniously that weekend was _much_ better than what you have now, and what you will have later. You know that you had no fear that I would injure you, not then or ever. You and your boyfriend executed a plan that you had been musing about for months, a plan to replace me with him in your life and to replace Amelia with Meredith in his. We both know that _you_ knew that you couldn't take the children to Seattle to be with you and your paramour if one of us filed for divorce, and that's why you ran with them - not because you were afraid, not because you couldn't support the children on $30,000 a year, tax-free. This thing was plotted, calculated, and executed according to your pre-determined, _documented_ plan, and _we both know it._ You and your boyfriend actually put on a show of breast-beating about the brutality you were planning to inflict upon the children, then resolved that it was all for the best, since everyone knows that children prosper best in the company of oversexed, overgrown teenagers. * You held my children incommunicado until Judge Dairman ordered phone contact. Whether they wanted to talk to me, to see me, to hug me - that was of no consequence where your convenience was concerned, and it _certainly_ didn't matter that I missed them terribly. * I busted my butt for six years - and you had your lawyer hold it against me - to keep my children out of day care, and the first thing you did was stick them both in a warehouse. * You put Meredith in a "very, very good" public school where she was rewarded for silence and for "active listening" - a euphemism for silence. Upon your return, you threatened to put Meredith in a public school here - which would not have saved you money, but would actually have _cost_ you $415 a month - giving the lie to your contention that it was really the excellence of the particular rich public school that motivated you. Any old school will do, as long as it's a school that stunts Meredith's intellectual growth. * After chopping away every square inch of the footing of Meredith's life, you proceeded to tell her the facts of her paternity. You did this to salve your vanity and your boyfriend's, and with complete disregard to the brutal damage you were inflicting on Meredith. And you did it so badly that _I_ had to do it over for you. * You held my children hostage for 3-1/2 months, until Commissioner Hicks ordered your return. * You continue to hold them hostage, exceeding the terms of the court order only for a niggardly two hours a week, again as a matter of your convenience, when you need free baby-sitting with baths. You purse your lips in stony silence when Cameron begs to be with me. "Who among you, when his brother asks for bread, will give him a stone...?" Clearly, the children are weapons to you. You love them, I'm sure, and you do your best by them. But when it becomes expedient for you to deploy them as weapons against me, you don't hesitate. When you have to choose between their welfare and your convenience, your vanity, your emotional needs, you consistently put yourself first, even when the consequences to the children are brutal. And I hope you are better as a psychologist with your future clients than you have been with the children. Cameron is very good at finding ways of acting out his distress, which at least relieves the over-pressure. Meredith has no such coping skills, and she's very good at disguising her inner turmoil. You've put both of them through hell, and it's going to be a long, long time before they get clear of it. This is important, Ann. You're exceptionally good at temporarily justifying your actions, but we both know the anesthetic doesn't last. For now you might be puffed up with self-righteousness, but in due course you're going to have to face up to the awful things you've done. And they _are_ awful, and you _did_ do them. Cameron already has a pretty clear idea of what you've done to him, and Meri has become a moral relativist rather than condemn you. In due course, they're both going to be very angry at you, and if you insist on continuing to hold them hostage you'll be very lucky if the reaction stops at green hair and body piercing. Your whole purpose in all of this has been to absolve yourself. You have done horrible, monstrous, unforgiveable things, yet you persist in parading yourself as the injured party. You have contorted your mind in dozens of gruesome poses, all to pretend that you were _justified_ in doing these brutal deeds. You have done grave injustices to me, and I assure I have suffered from them. But I'm a big boy. I can take it. What's so much worse is that you have used the children so brutally, as pawns in your wretched game. I can understand that you cannot bear to own your evil, Ann. But I cannot understand how you can rationalize forcing my children to pay the price so that you can duck it. Your behavior has been revolting. Sticking _them_ with the consequences is much, much worse. II. Brutalization in the future * "I'll also remind you that, while we may be ordered to return and to stay in Arizona for the duration of this process, we will not have to stay there forever, and I don't plan to." That is, 1. You believe that you cannot lose custody. 2. You believe that you would be justified in ripping the children away from me _again_. 3. More day-care for Cam, more public school for Meri. 4. Perhaps the whole process repeated when you and your boyfriend break up. We know that he is capable of abandoning his REAL child; what would Cam and Meri be to him? Yes, yes, I know. _This_ time it's forever. Even though the statistics say this chance is lots worse than the first chance. Even though each of you knows the other is capable of relentless deceit, treachery and adultery. It's love, love, love. Love like you've never known it before, just like the last time... It is vitally important for you to deliver Meredith to Steve. Cameron is just a pawn, and that is abundantly clear in the Email. But Meredith is the true spoils of this war. She's the way you two have of resurrecting your past. The past that included not one but two appointments to murder Meredith. The past that saw your boyfriend unable to commit to her life, even though he was courageously ready to accompany you to her death. The past that saw him robbed of the box-score notation of his ejaculation. Your ability to lie to yourself is nowhere more profoundly obvious than when you said that _I_ am not Meredith's father. I taught her to stick out her tongue when you said it was impossible. I taught her to make raspberries when you said it was too soon. I taught her thousands of words, hundreds of wondrous ideas, and dozens of goofy, made-up languages. I taught her the principles that guide her life and will _always_ guide her life. I am all the father she ever had, and I will always be the most important influence in her life even if you rip her away from me forever. I am not Meredith's father - because I never denied her, never betrayed her, because I fought for her life when you wanted to murder her, loved her when Steve Wright and all your so-called friends shunned her as a horrible embarassment, loved her when _no one_ did. I am not Meredith's father because I gave her everything but one microscopic sperm cell... And so it is vitally important for you to deliver Meredith to Steve, whom everyone but Meredith and I seem to regard as her "real" father. He needs a new rag doll to replace the rag doll he ditched in Reading, and together you'll murder Meredith's spirit now, to absolve yourselves for failing to murder her body before... You are promising, if you win custody, to inflict another unforgiveable act of brutality upon my children in order to pursue your fantasy love affair and salve your vanity. I hope for your sake that your love affair works out. I know for a fact that the children will never recover from the brutality. III. Learning to be whole You asked me if, at the end of my life, there would be someone sleeping beside me. A better question, I think, is this: will you ever in your life be capable of sleeping alone? I learned a lot about you after you kidnapped my children, and not much of it was pretty. I'm nobody's expert at phychological nosology, and I'm sure you don't want to hear it anyway, so I'm just going to hit a few high points. I think you run from person to person to avoid confronting Ann. I think you need to learn to be whole, and you need it much worse than anything else. Your life's pattern seems to be larger and larger crises, each one designed to permit you to absolve yourself from dealing with the last crisis. I am very much afraid that you will do something _really_ stupid - alcohol, mysticism, suicide. I know it's getting harder and harder for you to come up with new crises, and that story doesn't promise a happy ending. One of your old friends called while you were in Seattle and we had a nice, long chat. I heard the story of your relationship, and the condensed version sounded very familiar: you were attracted to and later at war with that person's passion for life. That's not just the story of you with me, or you with your friend. That's the story of your life, I think, the crisis-maker. Lucinda has said things that lead me to think that you're doing it with Steve, too, which would be very sad for both of you. But much sadder for my children, if you end up with custody. Second because that don't need _another_ disruption from a _new_ set of crises. But first because I'm very much afraid that you're going to make war on _their_ passionate love of life, also. You say somewhere in the Email that Laurel - that great expert on deception and betrayal - said that the children would profit by seeing your relationship with Steve. My read of the Email is that your affair is obsessive-compulsive, addictive, symbiotic and adolescent, but you surely disagree. But we can say with certainty that what the children will _not_ see, should you get custody, is a whole woman, capable of living her own life. Uncompleted tasks, unreturned books, unmailed letters, unpaid bills. If we each had a label on our foreheads, yours would be "Unfinished Business". You've never been self-sufficient, self-supporting, self-reliant. You've never been self-contained, and while you might regard that as a virtue, the consequences suggest otherwise. Of all the trade paperback books your brought home over all the years, I think the best of them might have been the Frankl, the one that _didn't_ offer you any excuses, the one that _didn't_ give you anyone else to blame. I've been listening to Laura Schlesinger, a radio shrink, and she has much the same approach. (She is recommended; 9-Midnight, M-F, KFYI 910 AM.) There was a time when I thought that I was the best friend you ever had. This was never true. I realized after you kidnapped my children that the only times you had any use for anything I had to say was when I was flattering you or portraying you as what I hoped you would become (AnnBecoming). I'm not a gentle teller of truths, surely, but the fact is that you never had any use at all for the truth I am so good at telling, when I am _not_ stroking you. Upon reflection, I think the best friend you have is Suzanne. She has the deft touch it takes to get you to take responsibility for your own culpability, at least sometimes. I have no desire to do you good or ill. You are much as a stranger to me; somewhat less, in fact, since a stranger is an unopened book. But as a matter of good will, I can extend this to you: 1. We do not express outrage at nonsense. If you have an outsized emotional reaction, a gigantic portrayal of offended virtue, it's because the object of your performance is telling you a truth that you don't want to hear. 2. Suzanne is your friend in every way that I never was, and in every way that Steve is not now. I stroked you in the hope that you'd let me live. He strokes for whatever reason he has. Suzanne tells you the truth, prompting Oscar-winning performances of outsized outrage. 3. Chapters 2, 4, and 9 of "Janio at a Point" are very appropriate to our situation. Everything I know about you now was manifest years ago. I just looked away. Chapter 2. I understood perfectly, right away, what price you had signed up to pay, and I sent a note to the boys to that effect on January 4. Chapter 2. Evil is doing something that you know in advance is wrong. Chapter 9. Simple errors and evil acts can be at least partially redeemed, but only by acknowledging them for what they are. Chapter 9. And it is possible to love life - valid, useful and _righteous_ - but only _as an ego_, not as any sort of attempted substitute. Chapter 4. Even though you never read it, or never understood it, your over-the-top flattery of the book was correct. It's redeemed my life twice now. If you open yourself to the truth, it can help you redeem what you haven't already destroyed. But the point is this: if the children are with me, Meredith will learn how to be a whole woman. Cameron will learn how to respect and admire and desire whole women. And - who knows? - maybe someday I'll meet a whole woman my own age and have a relationship like the ones I have with the men in my life whom I love so much. IV. The generosity of my offer * "Since you have to move anyway, I would be more than willing to help relocate you here; and, it would be to your great financial advantage to settle this in this way." You asked how the children would feel when you tell them that I tried to "buy" them, when here we see you doing exactly the same thing. On the one hand, I would hope that the children would be gratified to learn that _nothing_ (no _thing_) is more important to me than their well-being. On the other hand, you might invest some time in thinking about how they are going to react when they understand clearly that you have _stolen_ them. You've made it plain, in your "offer", that if you win custody, I will have virtually no contact with my children. But consider what will happen should you lose this custody battle. The visitation I have now is not common; it's more common for non-custodial parents to have every other weekend. Assuming you want to return to Steve, you'll see the children almost never. I certainly don't want that. I think you have demonstrated that you are not fit to have custody of them. You have made concerted and vicious warfare on their emotional lives for months, and there is no reason to suppose that you will ever be whole enough to refrain from doing this. But, unlike your bizarre "offer", I _don't_ want to deprive you of contact with my children. That is why my own offer is so generous as regards visitation. If you are offended by the financial arrangements, by all means pick up your share. I certainly could use the help; I'm carrying _at least_ $50,000 in debt, and I have no clear idea how much. But I don't care if you don't. I am bending over backwards to give you as much as I can - as much property, as much debt relief, and as much visitation time as I can. I cannot surrender the lives of my children to more of this brutalization, but I can give you a great deal of contact with them, and a great deal more than any court is going to give you. V. My skills as a parent One of the cliches of divorce is the newly-ex'd ex-wife who discovers how powerful she was all along. I guess you can call me Babycakes, because I've discovered that I'm very, very good at a whole host of tasks I never before gave very much thought to. My house is always clean, my dishes are always done, my laundry is always clean, my bills are always paid. I never cared very much about that stuff before I got married, and you handled it afterward. I believed you when you told me how hard it all was. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was very easy even back in the days when I couldn't walk. Of course, you are very bad at all of these jobs, and you have been for as long as I've known you. Despite your claims to the contrary, I did at least half of the laundry and half of the dishes in the years of our marriage, but I only did them when you were so far in default that the situation qualified as an emergency. The first week we lived under the same roof, I spent _days_ doing your loads and loads of wretched dirty laundry and your many sinksful of wretched dirty dishes. In the same sort of way, I let you claim credit for the children's upbringing, even though I was doing it - then, while you were in Seattle, and now - in every way that matters. You sneer at me and say that I am the children's "entertainment", and yet the first words out of your mouth when I came to pick them up on April 19 were that Meri had "conquered her fears" on the roller coaster. My words, my philosophy, my influence, my reinforcement. My parenting, executed by you. Three times now you've seen me deal with Cameron when you could not. You've seen it a lot more times than three, in the past, but I'm demanding credit for my accomplishments now. You needed me to tell you that Cameron's hostile behavior toward you was being reinforced by The Lion King. You didn't even know that the yellow Power Ranger was a horrible and hideous act of jealously on your part. There's more, but you know it already, so there's no need to detail it. I'm good at everything I do. I'm not good at everything, but anything I undertake to do I think about completely, until I understand it thoroughly, and I work relentlessly until I master it. I am very, very good at being a parent. Good at providing for my children financially. Good at making a home for them that is safe, happy, and healthy. Good at nurturing their emotional well-being. Good at guiding their intellectual pursuits. And good at having fun with them. I am thoroughly _conscious_ as a parent. I never make war on my children through anger or spite or thoughtlessness or bad impulses or inattention. I am thoroughly _conscious_ as a parent. I always strive to nurture the growth of my children in every area that interests them, and particularly in areas that don't. Any children I happen to be with are profitted by the contact, and my own children grow enormously in every hour they spend with me. But Meredith and Cameron need me in a way that lesser children would not: Meredith's (call it) subjectivism and Cameron's (call it) intrincism are only going to get more extreme if left uncontested. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, except that each one of them stands at risk of reaping only half of the wonder of life, Meredith as a word or number geek and Cameron as a hard-headed pragmatist. They both need me to help them find strength on the weak side, so to speak, to find the balance in their lives that is necessary for full and unlimited joy in living. There is no one else who can do this for them, in no small measure because no one else is even aware of the problem. I am not spitting on you. I said that I think you're okay as a parent, and you know that "okay" in my lexicon is the threshold of excellence. But "okay" is not good enough for my children, and it would be monstrous of you to deprive them of what they have with me for the sake of what they will never have with you. VI. The children need me like the trees need the sun I'm sure you're tired of hearing them talk about me by now. Hearing them sing songs I taught them. Hearing expressions they learned from me. I am their ocean, their lens, their defining metaphor. They reside in my world, a world most people never see or even know about, a world where nothing is out of reach, where anyone can do anything with effort and practice, where ambition is as boundless as imagination. Meri has plans to start a school for people of all ages; I'm so proud of her for that, and it's so very like me - very like the school in Mantrap, in fact. Cameron knows that you can't keep him from me despite your stony response to his entreaties; he is beside me whenever he sings The Motorcycle Song. I mean the world to them, and that is not a cliche: the attitude they bring to life they learned from me. If you win custody, you can take me from them. But you will take more than me from them, you will take everything that I have to give them. You claim to love Splendor, yet you let your lawyer wipe her butt with the finest expression of it you've seen so far. But there are finer expressions you might someday live to see. Cameron and Meredith have a chance to learn everything I've learned in my life while they're still children. They have the opportunity to start their journey where I stand now. Not just as regards Splendor - I've taught them everything they've wanted to learn since they were infants; it gives me great delight to hear Meredith lecturing on Cognitive Science. But they stand in the light of becoming truly _wonderous_ creatures, able to love life fluently, where I can never hope to do better than to love it as a second language, a self-taught immigrant to this world I made. You have a chance to see that wonderful Splendor your children may achieve. And you have the power to destroy it[...]. I am what I am, in large measure, _despite_ my upbringing. They have a chance to be much, much greater than I am _because_ they will be brought up by me, if they are. I know exactly what I hope to achieve, and I know how I plan to achieve it. No guarantees, but I am wide awake. Or you can continue to do with them as you've been doing[...]. You have a lot to regret. I know you haven't begun it yet. Your anger numbs you. But life is long, and the pages of your life can never be erased. You have before you the opportunity to do the absolute best thing you can do for your children, the best act of mothering you can do in these horrible circumstances. Or you can splatter black bile on more of the pages of your life. But you're splattering not just your own pages, but theirs as well, and the pages of their lives can never be erased, either. They will understand and forgive you, I think, for conceding that you cannot do right by them. You can never hope that they will forgive for deliberately doing wrong to them to salve your savage anger. Please, Ann, do the right thing. I'm sorry we couldn't have it the way we wanted it, the way they still want it. But please don't rob them of the joy and wonder and passion and Splendor of life. Go to your lover and be with him. I hope that you find joy and peace. But please stop making war on them, please stop trying to rob them of the life divine. They need me like the trees need the sun, Ann. Show them you love them. Let them reach for the light... Gregory Stephen Swann 5/19/95 To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Lest You Misunderstand I'll reply to this in detail tonight. I just wanted to hit two points: 1. I am not angry at you. This has been a theme of your mail, and it's completely untrue. I'd prefer it if you'd drop it with me, and it would be immensely helpful if you'd stop saying it to the children. 2. If you want my trust, it's withn your easy reach: stop trying to take my children away from me. They are as much mine as they are yours, and continuing to use the leverage of our circumstances to your advantage argues to me that as long as you can, you will continue to use the leverage of our circumstances to your advantage. In equity we are equal, but there will be no trust, nor no safe cooperation, between us until we are equal in law. Your move. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com, gswann@primenet.com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Lest You Misunderstand >I don't know why you effectively put her on the spot by asking >me in front of her about what she told you, but it wasn't the way to handle >it. She asked me to take it up with you. Note that Meredith saw me say to you that I will not take the children away from you, and she saw you say that you will take the children away from me. I don't know if, by denying what Meredith had told me, you were telling the truth or not. But Meredith knows, just as she knows the difference between your _actual_ "abduction" of the children and your lies about me on the same subject. >Another thing I'd like to expand upon, because it's so obvious, and because I >continue to be astonished by it: your "relationship" with Lucinda. I said it >this afternoon, and I'll say it again: the two of you are simply feeding each >other's anger Actually, I've talked to her a lot about managing and redirecting her anger, and about letting go. >As for what she's telling you: frankly, I'm surprised that you'd take her >seriously. I called her a "lunatic" today, and I mean that quite literally. Why do you dismiss her at such length, and so late at night? We do not ridicule the outrageous... >Did she tell you about her threatening phonecalls (to Steve's work number) >or the threatening mail she sent to us in Seattle? You could impress me by producing a copy of a threatening letter. I believe in truth, not testimony. >Perhaps you don't realize >the level of harassment that was going on in the early months of the year - >and that *she* was the reason for the confidentiality of our address and >phone number.... Which puts the lie to claims you have made in mail to me and in court. Moreover, in your mind a situation in which you had to hide from a person you claim is a lunatic was preferable to the children maintaining their relationship with me. You moved my children from safety to jeopardy, deliberately imperiling them. >I can't >believe you'd think that *any* reasonable person would empty out a bag of >garbage and put their child in it I am pursuing independent verification of this story. Neither you nor I were there, which makes us equal in the sense that we each have nothing to go by but the testimony of others. >and that *I* (who barely can leave the >children with a babysitter who's a stranger) would "expose" my kids to such a >person. You mean *you* who abandoned a man who couldn't walk, leaving him with no food, no money, no transportation and no children? You can footnote your character in any context you choose, but I dispute the veracity of your source material. >The real story behind that incident turns out to be: it started >raining one day at the Jazz Festival, and one of the band wives passed out >new Hefty bags for everybody to use as ponchoes. *Please.* Let's stupilate it. His daughter has been abandoned by her father and feels, appropriately or not, that she has been ditched. It is inexcuseable to put a child in that situation in _any_ sort of garbage bag. I think it would be inappropriate to put _any_ child in a garbage bag. Moreover, Amelia's situation argues stridently against Steve Wright's qualities as a parent. The child has been mind-raped, and it's a matter of conjecture by whom. Lucinda argues that Steve is 100% responsible. Assuredly Steve argues that Lucinda is 100% at fault. If we stipulate his claim - recognizing that the extreme is very dubious - we are left with this: Steve was 100% complicit in the mind-rape of his daughter. He either participated, or he didn't do anything to stop it; there is no absolution for him in this circumstance. You insist that he is being denied telephone visitation, and yet he has done nothing in the courts about it; he is either mendacious or hopelessly passive. You are trying desperately to deliver _my_ perfect daughter to a man whose sole qualification as a parent is demonstrated failure, _assuming_ he was not active in or even wholly responsible for the abuse of Amelia. You are planning to deliver my perfect children to a man who is prepared to trade Cameron for Meredith, to _sell_ my son in order to _buy_ my daugther. What kind of moral idiot would make such a vicious distinction over one microscopic sperm cell, and what kind of moral idiot would champion him as a parent? For my part, I find it easy to believe that a man who would say to Meredith, "Sometimes we do what we fear," fears nothing more than exposure. >I'd *love* to know what you'd do if you were dealing >with someone like Lucinda instead of someone like me. Lucinda has "abducted" no one. If Wright were present for his daughter, I might feel more sympathy for him - but _he_ might be having an easier time of it. He played the shame game, like a lot of divorced men, and cut out. It does not matter to me whether or not _he_ gets to see Amelia. What matters is that Amelia gets to see _him_, and she _can't_ see him because he ran away. I'm sure his pain is real, but all my tears are reserved for Amelia. And: the same is true for me. I am not fighting this battle so that I can have the children, but so they can have me. If I have to learn to live without them, I'll manage somehow. If they have to live without me, they'll never recover. And yet again: you can let up with the sympathy stories about him and about you. I don't care about any of that. What matters is the children, and _all_ that matters is the children. >Let me be clear: I've *got* a babysitter; and, frankly, I'd >rather the kids be with her than with you so as to not have to deal with you >any more than I have to. You're seeing the kids as much as you are because >it's what I want for the kids, to have you be a part of their daily lives as >much as possible. You'd see them a lot more if *our* relationship were more >functional That is to say, the issue is not them but you. That's what I've been saying. Sorry if you think I've been sneering it. They both need to see me a _lot_ more than they have been, but you've been impeding that for your own reasons. >You don't seem to get it that *I* grew >up without my father, as a result of my parents' bitterness toward each >other, and that I WILL NOT PUT MY CHILDREN THROUGH THAT, NO MATTER WHAT. We are what we do, not what we say we do... Your Email and your past conversations with me have been filled with protestations of things that you would ABSOLUTELY NOT EVER, EVER DO, which you have then proceeded to do. I anticipated your "abduction" of the children by six months, and you SWORE you would NEVER "abduct" my children. I'm willing to concede that your word is as good as Bill Clinton's: you mean what you say when you say it. >For god's sake: put aside your anger, stop confusing me with that woman in >Reading, and take a look at the woman and mother you've always known me to >be.... I've spent a great deal of time admonishing myself for refusing to take account of what I have known all along about you. I'm very sorry, particularly for Meredith's sake. >>We are what we do, not what we say we do... >> - Janio Valenta >What a lovely quote. Yes, it is. I wrote it early in the year with respect to you and Wright. Dr. Joy was much impressed with it, also. I attributed it to Janio to get other people to swipe it for their own signature files. As it works out, I think I could have used my own name, as my name is coming to amount to something. >>1. I am not angry at you. >I do believe that you believe this, and it's part of what troubles me so >deeply about you. I. Who is angry? >I'm getting pretty damn tired of you talking about how I "kidnapped" my >children. > >I'd rather the kids be with her than with you so as to not have to deal >with you any more than I have to. > >You're a *fool* > >What is *wrong* with you? > >I'm tired of this bullshit and I want to get on with my life. > >*That's* lunacy.... > >Greg, you are - at core - probably the angriest person that I've ever >met in my life. > >The way you treat other people is nothing short of cruel. > >you terrorized me with your anger > >you threatened my life > >you intimidated, belittled and demeaned me > >If you are *not* angry, you're sicker than I think you are. II. The past is gone. Janio said that, too. It doesn't matter that you were hurt in the past. It doesn't matter if I was hurt in the past. The past is not subject to any sort of change. Only the future is open to change. Listing your injuries is inefficacious with respect to the matter at hand. You can do what you want, but what I read in your remarks is that your actions have nothing to do with your stated intentions and have everything to do with revenge. I didn't cook you dinner and I didn't thank you properly for emptying my urinal. Oh, darn. That does not justify what you're doing to the children. >you seem to think that, because you don't *think* of yourself >that way, because all you can hear is 'the music in you head,' or whatever it >is, you are some life-loving, benevolent being. I know I am. My life is my proof. When the music is with me, I can share it with everyone who wants to dare to love life. When it's gone, I know I need to make a change. My error was trying to live without it. What was your error? Your list of grievances is justification for having left me a long time ago, not for what you have done and promise to do again to the children. I've heard from a lot of people through all of this, people who have known you a long time. Among the collaterals that went to Dr. Joy, there were three from people who know both of us very well. All three told me what they wrote, and all three were united in their praise of me as a man. They were united also in some criticisms of you: that you are a slovenly housekeeper, that you can rationalize anything, that you never failed to complain of some malady or onerous situation, and that you are incapable of distinguishing your own interests from the children's. Your own Email makes both of these cases abundantly, that you live to suffer and that I live to thrive. My entire corpus of work demonstrates this, too, while your time is devoted to scavenging for new grievances and painstakingly sewing them onto your sleeve. Well, it's your life to do with as you choose. The question is, which attitude toward life do you want to inculcate in the children? I offer them Splendor. You offer them tedious 12-step meetings featuring burnt coffee and warmed-over tragedies. Which would a life-loving person choose? >If you are *not* angry, you're sicker than I >think you are. The other half of this is your attempt to shout down the awful voices calling to you inside your own head. I did not betray our marriage. I did not steal from you. I did not abandon the children. I did not lie outrageously and use the cheapest of tactics to usurp custody. I did not leave you for dead and "abduct" your children. This is past and it only matters to me to the extent that it was hugely destructive to the children. But it matters very much to you, and it always will, and you will always have to try to shout it down, and you'll never be able to. You've built yourself an exquisite hell, and you'll never escape it. III. What's done is done. I'm glad to be talking to you by Email, because I get myself caught up in the context when we confront each other face-to-face. When I talk to Meri about this sort of thing, I call it mammal-brain stuff - sweat, racing pulse, erratic breathing, stomach distress, etc. The rapid pace itself contributes to the problem, and I find I let myself get sidetracked. Your assumption seems to be that I _am_ angry at you because I _must_ be or _should_ be or because _everyone_ in this circumstance is. This is not a valid assumption. In the same way, Meredith has at various times hinted that I must be angry at you or jealous of Wright. This is also untrue. I am not angry _because_ I am not sick. I blame no one but myself for _any_ of this, precisely because I had every datum I needed to foresee and avoid it, and I looked away instead. I wrote a book about that process, and soon I will write a better one. At Top of the Rock, you compared me to Henry Rearden, and that was correct: the power was mine. I have learned what I can from my errors and I am working to set the consequences right. There is no other _positive_ act I can take, and I do not pursue disvalues ever. My take is that you are angry at me - which is why you stay up all night flaming me and flame yet again for a page and a half in response to two short, passionless paragraphs - but it's possible I'm wrong and it doesn't matter anyway. _All_ that matters is the children. Lucinda is angry and she's very much aware of that fact. My take is that she has to strive to keep her marriage alive so she can keep trying to kill it. This may apply to you as well; certainly the endless recounting of your list of insufferable indignities argues that you cannot be content that our marriage is dead. I am found of the opposite side of that line, and, were it _not_ for the children, I would be happy to neglect you in perpetuity. What's done is done, and it is not possible to have efficacy in the past. But: the issue is the children, not you, not me, not Wright, not Lucinda. You claim to want to have me be a "daily" part of my children's lives, yet you sought to have my visitation cut in half and you threaten to withhold Meredith. You know they both love me desperately, and yet you withhold them from me on a "daily" basis to soothe yourself. We are what we _do_, Ann, not what we say we do. You've lived a life of lies for a year-and-a-half, and your rancor is never more pronounced than when your spin-control is threatened. But the truth isn't what I say it is, and it isn't what you say it is, it is what is, and what is is available for the apprehension of any observer. If you wanted the children here, they'd be here. Since they aren't, you don't. If you want to change your behavior, then change it, but don't argue that it's changed because you _said_ it is. We are what we do, not what we say we do... The bottom line is this: what is right for the children is for them to have _much_ more time with me. Cameron swam the length of the pool twice on Sunday. Just now, Meredith is gorging herself on the fruit of the life-loving tree, and I love to see it. I myself am very tired of these little miniature wars we have in the parking lot and on the phone. I'm offering you a better way to play, better for the children. If you want to spurn it, go ahead. >you threatened my life I must insist that you either substantiate this outrageous claim with a criminal charge or cease to make it. I have never threatend your life, nor anyone else's, and we do not "create" reality by ceaselessly repeating lies. >Instead >of offering me a hand so that I could finish my graduate program and better >provide for the children, you let me know that you wouldn't lift a hand >despite the fact that my job skills had been rendered obsolete by the six+ >years I had stayed home making a family for you and the kids. Thus do we discover the definition of the word "penniless". >*You* filed this dissolution seeking sole custody of the >children. *You* are attempting to take the children away from *me.* I have repeatedly made extremely generous offers to you. I told Dr. Joy that I would regard 50-50 as being fair - and she quite properly told me she didn't _care_ what might be "fair" for the parents, but only for the children. What did _you_ say to Dr. Joy? In my presence, you maintained your posture that I can only be permitted to see my children in Seattle, under supervision. You've painted yourself into a corner. Again. This is important, Ann. I told you at length why I think the children profit most from being with me, and you've spent three months stewing over that letter, demonstrating its truth by your fanatical attempts to deny it. _I_ think the children belong with me, and my strong impression is that Dr. Joy thinks the children belong with me. But I _don't_ want the children torn away from you, and _I_ have been doing everything I can to arrive at a deal that lets them grow with me but does not prevent them from seeing you. It is _you_ who are erecting every possible obstacle to this outcome, most particularly by insisting that you _must_ move to Washington. He was ashamed and abandoned his daughter. You are ashamed, and your solution is to force my children to abandon me. Neither of you will ever quiet the shame, and neither of you will ever undo the incredible violence you have inflicted upon three innocent children. But even with _that_ on the plate, I don't want to forbid the chldren to see you - or him. What _I_ think of you doesn't matter. _They_ love you, and they need you, and I will never do anything to stand in the way of your relationship with them. We filed for sole custody because that's what Miller said to do. I don't know what I'm doing. I promise to do better with my next divorce . If you want to deal to joint legal/joint physical custody of _both_ children, proportions set by Dr. Joy, we can sign the papers today. Put up or shut up. >So, to put it bluntly, I will do whatever I can, legally, to protect myself >and my children. >you keep saying how you don't trust me And the question was, why _won't_ I trust you? To which I answered: >>If you want my trust, it's within your easy reach: stop trying to >>take my children away from me. They are as much mine as they are yours, >>and continuing to use the leverage of our circumstances to your >>advantage argues to me that as long as you can, you will continue to >>use the leverage of our circumstances to your advantage. In equity we >>are equal, but there will be no trust, nor no safe cooperation, between >>us until we are equal in law. Your move. And your reply is: >I will do whatever I can, legally, to protect myself >and my children Which leads us back to: >>continuing to use the leverage of our circumstances to your >>advantage argues to me that as long as you can, you will continue to >>use the leverage of our circumstances to your advantage Ergo, you are using whatver advantage you can grasp in order to steal my children. Too bad for me. Inexcuseable for them. Ken Hooper, my best friend, has argued that I should not tell you this, but I think I must: you cannot dominate me, and you cannot make me suffer. Not "I won't permit you", but "I am constructed such that you cannot, and no one can". In this mail you attempt to lord your newly won ownership of Meredith over me. It's a dominance game, and it smells like week-old fish. But it doesn't matter. Right now, you have the power to take Meredith away from me. It would be horrible for Meredith, and I'm sure you know she'd hate you and Wright forever for doing it to her, but you could do it. I'd hate it, too, but I'd find a way to live through it, and I'd bet a large dollar that I'd come out of the experience stronger; that's certainly been the case with the accident and this awful divorce. On Tuesday, I came home from court and an hour or two later I had the experience that resulted in this text: True fact: often when I'm alone and working and when I love the work I've done, I yelp, I bark. Not like a dog, particularly, and onomatopoeia conceals more than it reveals. But I yip, loud and proud, a boisterous and liberating expression of delight undiluted. I don't want to dance with the infidels, nor even to talk with them. For the most part I am happy enough to let them stumble to their own damnation, and there are days when I would hasten them. But there is inside me a yearning to have everyone know, if only for an instant, what it feels like to love life in the way that I do when I bark for joy. We are libertarians, and we define ourselves, in large measure, by what we rebel _against_. But we are as much defined by what we are loyal _to_. The infidel won't be converted when he claims to hate the state or to uphold the individual. He will be converted when he discovers that the interests of one's own self come before any other claim. When he acknowledges that _no one_ but himself can imprison him in a dank basement of fear and doubt and humiliation. When he permits himself to embrace life, the precious life that each of us should treasure and too many of us squander. He will be converted when he lets himself yip like the fox puppies romping in the dewy dawn. He will be converted when he dares to dance, awkwardly, gracelessly, proudly, joyously free... I don't what you expect to happen, but I can tell you what will not happen. There will never come a day when I will kneel to you or beg for your mercy. I have offered to negotiate with you for the children's sake, and I will deal with you honestly and generously. But you can hold out forever and it won't sway me at all. If revenge is your motive, you will never have it. Greg Swann To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Change of Plans >Steve will be in town this weekend. We've been planning a short trip to the >Grand Canyon and to see the Meteor Crater, and Meri would like to come with >us. I asked her how she'd like to make up her time with you, and she said >she'd like to go over to your place after school on Monday or Tuesday. I >hope that will work for you. If so, I'll plan on dropping Meri off after >school and collect her in time to get her home for bed. You can let me know >which day would be better.... Will you please run this past Dr. Kigin? I think it's a very bad idea to treat the children differently. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Need Clarification My time is tight this morning, so I must be brief. 1. Acting in ways that imply that the difference in biological parentage of the two children can have practical consequences is a bad idea, in my opinion. Making the distinction oneself is one thing, I suppose. Fostering the distinction in their minds is another. In due course, it will drive a wedge between them. I listen for this _now,_ and I'm badly spooked by it. 2. Meredith has plans for this weekend. We were going to get new shoes. "The Mask--The Animated Movie" is on TV Saturday. And her Cobra costume should finally be done this weekend. Had she been reminded of these considerations, I expect her enthusiasm would have waned. 3. I don't love the idea of one of my children seeing the canyon and not the other, and I don't want _either_ of them to see it without me. You've never had any interest in seeing Arizona, and this is an adventure I've wanted to do with them for a long time. We couldn't before because of the state of Farquhar, then I had my accident, and, since they've been back, I've been penniless. In due course my mom or my dad will be here, and we can make the trip in a rented car on their nickel. 4. Dr. Kigin said some things to me that I'd really like to talk with Meredith about. Nothing major, but I'd like the opportunity to revisit the topic over time, rather than having to cram it all into one short evening. >(But, you haven't had a problem with Cameron doing just that....) Meredith has. She gripes about it all the time. I agree with her that it's unfair. Their both _scrupulous_ about making sure the other doesn't get the bigger piece of cake. >Meri has been *begging* me for some "special" time with me, away >from her brother. That's easily arranged. >She has also repeatedly voiced disappointment with not getting to see >Steve when he's here for more than a few hours. That's also easily dealt with. >I thought that some special time with us over the weekend would help. Denying Meredith contact with me does not seem to me to be beneficial. She doesn't see me enough already. Trading 51 hours for four or five is contrary to her interests. I don't like it much, either, but that's irrelevant. >I *was* concerned that Cam would have a problem not going, but he's happy to >be spending special time with you I don't doubt it, and each of them could undoubtedly profit from alone time with each of us. >If you can, please clarify the issue for me, so I know exactly what >your concern is? My major concern is avoiding the impression in either child's mind that the other is afforded special treatment because of biological parentage. Any sort of impression of favoritism would be abhorrent to me, but this is the one that's on the table. Suggestion: Bring them over tonight and pick them up Saturday night. You and Steve can go to the canyon together (or Sedona, perhaps), and you can take the kids to the crater (or to the high country) on Sunday. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Need Clarification >>>She doesn't see me enough already. Trading 51 hours for four or five >>>is contrary to her interests. > >Meri's sense is that she spends more of her waking hours with you than she >does with me. She brings it up constantly, complaining that she hardly gets >to see me anymore. However, I'm not trying to deprive either of you of time >with the other, so I asked *her* how she wanted to make up her time with you. > What I proposed to you is what she told me. You didn't take this up with me before presenting it to Meredith (Cameron told me about it--although he had no idea what he was talking about--before you did). You didn't invite Meredith to discuss it with me before making up her mind. I expect you didn't explain to Meredith the discrepancy between 51 hours and five hours. >Meri's sense is that she spends more of her waking hours with you than she >does with me. She brings it up constantly, complaining that she hardly gets >to see me anymore. In the past you've offered to trade me for _less_ time that I'm getting. Tactically, I cannot accept less, since it will enable Fromm to claim that I am indifferent to my children. And, taking account of their interests, they don't spend anything like enough time with me. If you want to trade for a weekend day, offer me Thursday 3pm to Saturday 6pm--or more. You might also consider pointing out to Meredith that she spends most of her waking hours in school, next with you, and with me last. >However, I'm not trying to deprive either of you of time >with the other, so I asked *her* how she wanted to make up her time with you. >What I proposed to you is what she told me. Here is another alternative: Leave Meredith here when you come to pick up Cam. I will drop her back at your place after dinner on Tuesday night. That will give both children a vast expanse of time alone with each parent. Again, trading 51 hours for four or five is contrary to her interests. Is the potty poster in play at your place yet? I'd like to go to big-boy pants this weekend, so let me know. Also, I discussed with Dr. Kigin Dr. Joy's idea of a locking diary with two keys, and I'll have that for you on Sunday. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Need Clarification This is a bit of follow-up prepended to the matter below, prepared earlier, concerning our phone call tonight. You said, "I don't have to explain myself to you!" To the contrary, I think you do. You wrote: >Meri can have time with you during the week, if she wants it. and >I simply asked her what she wanted to do, and took her at her word. and >Over the weekend, I will ask Meri, again, how she'd like to make up her >time with you. I'll try to accomodate whatever she asks for. And yet when Meredith asked to spend two nights with me instead of one you refused, and refused to explain why Meredith's wishes ought not be pre-eminent in deciding the matter, contrary to the above three claims. It's a sad thing indeed that Meredith would miss out on a party, but we had plans for this weekend that were pushed aside without second thought. Likewise, it's sad that Cameron was distressed--he had no problem sleeping without Meredith here--but this is a causal chain you set in motion. Meredith will be here and awake a total of six hours. Another day would bring the total to 12-1/2. This is nothing compared to the 31 hours Meredith normally gets, as you were kind enough to calculate. So, yes, I think you _do_ need to explain yourself. You said on the telephone a couple of weeks ago that you are not trying to injure me. Perhaps not. Presumably, you would also deny that you are trying to hurt the children. But the fact remains that you _are_ hurting the children, intentionally or not. Your assertion of dictatorial power makes plain that your position is unreasonable--we do not compel when we have the intellectual means to sway--and it erects a significant psychological impediment to your behaving reasonably in the future. I have dealt with this matter in as calm and detached a manner as I am capable of doing, and I don't think it is at all unreasonable of me to ask you to explain yourself at length and in detail. --GSS >>You didn't take this up with me before presenting it to Meredith >Yes, you're right. I didn't want to get into a battle over it. And you didn't get one. I've offered repeatedly, in several different ways, to try to work this out as much as possible to everyone's advantage, or at least to no one's detriment. What we're talking about is not a battle but adults behaving together as adults, rather than one adult acting unilaterally and, essentially, maneuvering a child into making decisions far beyond her years. >I also did not think that this was a major big deal. >It's a short getaway to the Canyon, not a month in Europe. That doesn't make any difference. Time the children don't spend with me is not spent with me regardless of where it is spent or for how long. All of it is irreplaceable as far as I'm concerned. I think you did realize that this is a serious matter, as evidenced by the fact that you worked so carefully. But let's assume that you really don't understand why it's a "major big deal." It is. Here's why: 1. Every solid, dear thing in the childrens' lives has been shredded. Their parents are divorcing, they live in two different places at once, their mother hauled them thousands of miles away from their father and forced them to play parts in an elaborate politico-theatrical production that even they could tell was completely transparent. After they were uprooted they were told that they had a "new" Daddy. They are essentially in psychotherapy. Cameron has a fairly serious gastro-intestinal disorder to thank for it. Meredith was taken from the school she loved and stuck in a public warehouse. They're both aware that anything arranged today may be disordered tomorrow. One of the few things they have that's regular is weekends with their Dad. They love to come here, they love to be here, they've learned to count on it, and you have no business disposing of that on their behalf. Both children need regular, frequent contact with both parents in order to maintain their _own_ sense of security. 2. We are both well aware that if you succeed in court, both of these children will again be hauled back to Seattle and I have but very dim hope that I will ever see them again. Everything you've done and everything you're trying to do argues that you will cheerfully attempt to dispose of me as a father if there's any way you can get away with it legally. I treasure every minute with my children, and even moreso because I know that that minute may well be one of the few minutes left me. You may presume that I will always object if they are withheld from me. 3. "Special time" spent with Steve Wright or a favorite schoolteacher or anybody else is not equivalent in nature to time spent with me; do not assume that you can mix and match them as you please, or as _they_ please. I am their father. They are not-yet-four and not-yet-seven. They are not capable of making decisions like this. If they were, they wouldn't need parents. >We'll be back on Sunday, in time to pick Cam up. Meri can have time with >you during the week, if she wants it. Why not be flexible about this? I offered two different means of being flexible. I have no desire to hurt her relationship with you. I am asking you to forebear disrupting Meredith's relationship with me. Why not be sensitive to her needs, rather than her expressed wants? If we are to give Meredith only what she wants, then she will eat nothing but ice cream and spend time only with Coco, my mother's dog. >>You might also consider pointing out to Meredith that she spends most >>of her waking hours in school, next with you, and with me last. >By my count, I have from ~3-8 with Meri on Mon. - Thurs. That's ~5*4=20 >hours. Add that to, at *most*, 3 hours on Sundays after I pick her up; >that's ~23 hours. > >You, on the other hand, have 3-9 (or so) on Friday. Plus 7-9 on Saturday >(~14 hours), plus 7-6 on Sunday. That's 6+14+11=~31 hours. This is foolish, Ann. You also have her from 6-8 am every weekday, which puts you at 37 hours, actually more than the school figure. Then we need to add in school holidays and the days you keep Meredith home--days when she is now, since she is enrolled in a public school, legally truant. I understand that your time is filled with maintenance chores, where much of mine is not, so I will happily trade my 51 hours for your 117. Playing with my children is fun, but my goal is to raise them. Please let me know if you want to switch. >At present, Cameron *has* a lot of time alone with me. Cam has had nothing like a trip to the Grand Canyon or to Tombstone with you. Cameron's clothes came here on Friday in what is essentially a garbage bag (you had better believe I am on the lookout for garbage bags), which is why they went home in a brand new back-pack. Meredith is mentioned 2-1/2 times as often as is Cameron in your Email. On the other hand, Meredith is sensitive to and resentful of the fact that Cameron gets to come over here for alone time during the week. It's normal for siblings to be hypersensitive to issues of fairness and favoritism, but you and Wright have added the shadow of a real doubt, at least in Meredith's mind. It is incumbent upon _each_ of us to be _scrupulously_ fair, _ludicrously_ fair with both children, to combat this real if possibly groundless fear. None of this had to happen. There may be times when it's necessary to treat the children differently because of their ages, or for some other reason, but this wasn't one of those times. There are lots of things to do besides go somewhere you aren't comfortable taking Cameron. There may be times when it's unavoidable that one child sees me or you when the other doesn't, but this wasn't one of those times. Any time one child wants special time with you, you can drop the other one off here--but please be conscientious about reciprocity. >Again, however, Meri *is* wanting lots of extra time with me. Again, there is nothing preventing you from dropping Cam over here at 2:30 and having a weekly Meri's Night celebration. There is no logical connection between Meri having time with you and Meri being denied time with me. >>I expect you didn't explain to Meredith the discrepancy between >>51 hours and five hours. >But, you're right, I didn't go into detail the mathematics of her >options; I simply asked her what she wanted to do, and took her at her >word. Every Sunday night, Meredith tells me that she doesn't want you to pick her up, that she wants to stay with me. I don't know if she means it, or if she'd still mean it a week later. I don't know if she's saying it because she thinks it will please me, because she's exagerrating her distress, or because she would genuinely prefer to live with me. Dr. Kigin says that Meredith is reluctant to mention you to me, which is what I need to talk to her about, because I _never_ want her to feel that any part of her life is unwelcome in my home. I have the idea that she's playing the same game on you; on Sunday, she was very reluctant to let you see her hugging me. In any case, I think we can regard Meredith's testimony as suspect at best. We know she can't make the quantitative analysis of costs and benefits. And the decision is not one a child should be making in any case. >I didn't think it was that big a deal. Everything that happens with the children right now is a big deal. I am her father, her only father, and I will always be her only father. If I get custody and marry soemone else, you will nevertheless always be her only mother. As much as you might want to, you can't revise the last seven years out of your existence or out of hers. I think it was a mistake for you and Wright to tell her about her paternity when you did, since the datum is completely irrelevant and devlishly confusing. The net effect is simply to disrupt her on-going definition of her self, and events like this weekend simply add to the confusion. I know you want her to see Wright, and that they want to see each other. That's fine. I want both kids to see my dad, and they all want to get together, too. But in no way would it be appropriate for them to see my dad _instead_ of you. One relationship is nice, the other is necessary. Putting nice before necessary is a big deal. >Over the weekend, I will ask Meri, again, how she'd like to make up her >time with you. I'll try to accomodate whatever she asks for. Meredith lacks the experience to perform effectively as an adult, and the burden is one she ought not have to bear. If you want to withhold her from me, take responsibility for your own actions. >>Tactically, I cannot accept less, since it will enable Fromm to claim that >>I am indifferent to my children. >If you're so concerned about your children, and about how concerned you >*appear* to be, you might try a couple of things: I am not at all concerned about appearances. I am concerned about established legal precedents that courts have used to deny children access to their fathers. The point is that in claiming that none of this is "any big deal", you're giving the impression that you didn't consult me because there is no just cause for my concern. Anytime you deny the children contact with me, whether by flight or by force of law or by stealth, you're hurting them, and I will always be concerned about that. >Phoning when you say you will. It's been a month since Meri's heard >from you between visits. I always phone when I say I will. I haven't committed to calling in quite a while, since you always seem to be out when I call in the evening and my messages are never returned. >I didn't realize how much it has evidently bothered her until the phone >rang at 7:30 last Wednesday, and she was devastated that it wasn't you; And yet you did not pick up the phone and dial my number or encourage Meredith to do so. >Paying your family support. Not only did the end of the month come and >go without your coming current, you're more in arrears than before. If you're worried about the support of the children, put them here. I work for a living and can support them. You _know_ that I cannot pay the sums demanded of me, and I've augmented your knowledge with substantial documentation. I wish I _had_ extra money; I'd buy a bed, since sleeping on a sofa is doing my hip no good at all. If I had extra money on a regular basis, I'd get physical therapy; I'm going to walk with a limp for the rest of my life so that you can spend a year on the dole. I'm very grateful to my parents and friends for sending me the small sums I use to buy treats for the children, but I need physical therapy, hip surgery, ankle surgery, nerve therapy and dental reconstruction, and I am able to obtain none of it. I think it's you who should worry about appearances, particularly since you are 100% in arrears of your own child support obligations. From my own perspective, the only appearance I worry about is the one the children are seeing; they're learning from you that one is not responsible for one's own existence, a rather unwelcome lesson. I'm faxing all of this mail to Dr. Kigin, since I haven't heard from you that you have spoken with her. So you understand, my concerns are much deeper than this weekend or the quantity of compensating time. I am dreadfully concerned that either child might get the idea that the other is of greater (or lesser) importance to either parent. I am concerned that you are demonstrating a willingness to use your temporary legal advantage to withhold contact with me from the children; this does them nothing but harm, and I hope to help you see that there is nothing that you can ever gain that is worth inflicting injury upon our children. And I am deeply distressed that Meredith is unwilling to be fully forthcoming with me and, I surmise, you. Her having to withhold a part of herself from her parents is _exactly_ the sort of thing we should be trying to avoid. You can subtly work to poison their relationship with me--as you did when you noted but did nothing about Meredith's distress last Wednesday night--but this will not cause them to love you more, and it may in due course induce them to reject you. You do not add to a child's store of values by subtracting the treasures they already own. >We'll be back on Sunday, in time to pick Cam up. >Over the weekend, I will ask Meri, again, how she'd like to make up >her time with you. Why did you tell me on Friday that you hadn't read and replied to this mail when you had? --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: A Fuller Explanation >2) I mentioned to you over the weekend, when addressing your proposal that I >drop Meri off for two nights/days starting Sunday, that I don't want the kids >to spend that much time apart in so short a time frame. That was part of the >reason that I wanted to push Meri's visit off from Monday to Tuesday night; >the kids were *so* glad to see each other on Sunday, and I wanted them to >settle back into their routine a bit before it got disrupted again. How am I to react? You put this game in motion. Predictably--I predicted it last week--this silly episode has unhappy consequences. >3) So, in response to your pointed comment about Meri's wants not being >paramount, let me say explicitly that I am trying to factor in both Meri >*and* Cam's *needs* (which don't always parallel their *wants*), and to take >into consideration a number of things at the same time (like the tradeoff >between their having spontaneous time with you versus their need for >predictability and a routine they can count on). 1. This is not "spontaneous" time. You have referred to it all along as compensatory time. It does not compensate for what you have taken from Meredith, but that's how you referred to it. 2. I have been arguing for the children's needs while you have consistently defended your manipulation of Meredith by reference to her desires. Her desires now conflict with yours, so the gloves come off. 3. Hiding behind Cameron's "*needs*" is really no better redoubt. Cameron "*needs*" time with me every day. Yet in Dr. Joy's office, you made a point of spouting, "I don't _care_ what you think Cameron needs!" 4. Similarly, it is vain of you to speak of "their need for predictability and a routine they can count on" when we are discussing means for ameliorating your having disrupted their standing routine of spending the weekend together here with me. Your past spin-control messages have been better, if no less transparent. If you want to impress me, these words will suffice: "Withholding Meredith was a mistake that won't be repeated." --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: A Request >I'm in the process of becoming licensed as a daycare provider. I plan to be >caring for an infant, and it would help my business tremendously if I could >make use of some of the baby equipment that's in storage. Specifically, the >port-a-crib, the backpack, the hanging jump-seat (probably in a box), the >Summer seat (the white infant seat with primary colored butterflies and the >toy attachment that fits across it - also probably in a box), the >stroller(s), and the medium-sized box of infant toys that was in the garage. > >Please let me know if and when I can have access to these things, so that I >can make my plans accordingly. Haven't had time to deal with this yet, but it reminded me of something else: My mom has volunteered to pay airfare for the three of us to come out for Thanksgiving. To do this, we'd be gone from Weds. afternoon to Sunday afternoon (11/22-11/26), to qualify for excursion fares. Let me know if this is okay with you. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: A Request My server's been flaking out, and I'm not sure if this got sent. If it's a dupe, sorry. >I'm in the process of becoming licensed as a daycare provider. I plan to be >caring for an infant, and it would help my business tremendously if I could >make use of some of the baby equipment that's in storage. Specifically, the >port-a-crib, the backpack, the hanging jump-seat (probably in a box), the >Summer seat (the white infant seat with primary colored butterflies and the >toy attachment that fits across it - also probably in a box), the >stroller(s), and the medium-sized box of infant toys that was in the garage. > >Please let me know if and when I can have access to these things, so that I >can make my plans accordingly. Haven't had time to deal with this yet, but it reminded me of something else: My mom has volunteered to pay airfare for the three of us to come out for Thanksgiving. To do this, we'd be gone from Weds. afternoon to Sunday afternoon (11/22-11/26), to qualify for excursion fares. Let me know if this is okay with you. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: A Request >I'm in the process of becoming licensed as a daycare provider. I plan to be >caring for an infant, and it would help my business tremendously if I could >make use of some of the baby equipment that's in storage. Specifically, the >port-a-crib, the backpack, the hanging jump-seat (probably in a box), the >Summer seat (the white infant seat with primary colored butterflies and the >toy attachment that fits across it - also probably in a box), the >stroller(s), and the medium-sized box of infant toys that was in the garage. > >Please let me know if and when I can have access to these things, so that I >can make my plans accordingly. I finally got a chance to look for this stuff today. The answer is you can have access to this stuff when I have time to pull it out of storage. Probably Sunday night. I'll send you email when it's out and can be picked up. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Saguaro? Am I supposed to do something with this Saguaro starter? --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Holidays, etc. >>>My mom has volunteered to pay airfare for the three of us to come out for >>>Thanksgiving. To do this, we'd be gone from Weds. afternoon to Sunday >>>afternoon (11/22-11/26), to qualify for excursion fares. Let me know if >>>this is okay with you. > >I'm sorry; I was under the impression that we were not supposed to take the >children out of the state during this period, so I'd already made some plans. We can do anything the other party does not object to. The court reacts only to complaints, and then only very slowly. > A number of Seattle friends will be in the area, so we'll be celebrating >with them. However, if you'd like to share the day, I'd be glad to bring >them over for you to do so. If your mom wants to come to town herself, I'd >be happy to arrange more time for the kids to spend with her. If you decide >to take advantage of your mom's generousity and go home yourself, I'm willing >to arrange an alternative time for you to have your own celebration with the >kids. Let me know what you'd like to do. I would like for you to make alternative arrangements with your friends from Seattle. The purpose of this voyage is for the children to be able to see my entire family, not just my mom. My grandparents' brothers and sisters are fading fast, and it's clear that many of them will not last through the Winter. Moreover, there is every chance that this is the last time that anyone in my family will have a chance to see the children. I'm willing to accomodate you however I can. For example, since I am asking for an extra two days, I'd be willing to see the children from 3 to 7 on Friday the 17th and then deliver them back to you. Your friends from Seattle could see them over that weekend, and then they'd be back with me on Wednesday. If some alternative seems more attractive to you, say so. >Wednesday is Yom Kippur. As with all Jewish holidays, it begins at sundown >the evening before. I plan to go to synagogue Tuesday evening, and, rather >than my getting a sitter, I wondered if you'd like the kids to spend the >night with you. I'd like Meri to go to school Wednesday morning, and I'd >plan to pick her up, as well as Cam from your house, by around 1:00 so that >we can make a 1:30 Children's Service. Meri really loved the Rosh Hashona >service, and ended up bringing home the service booklet so that she could >"decode" the Hebrew. I might possibly return for late afternoon services, >dropping the kids back off so that they could have dinner with you, if that >would work for you. Please let me know as soon as you can (again, I >apologize for the short notice) so that I can make other arrangements if this >doesn't work for you. All of this is fine, not any sort of problem, and very welcome. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: ????? >>>Moreover, there is every chance that this is the >>>last time that anyone in my family will have a chance to see the >>>children. > >I don't know what this means. Would you explain it? If you get what you want, you and the children will be in Washington. I will be in Arizona. My mother's family will be in Illinois. My father's family will be in Connecticut. Phoenix->Seattle->Indianapolis or Phoenix->Seattle->NYC doesn't seem like a very likely flight plan. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Tonight >I'm going to pick Meri up from school this afternoon, and bring her home and >spend a little bit of special time with her. I'll plan to bring the kids >over in time for dinner, I'd guess between 5-6, unless I hear otherwise from >you.... That's fine. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Thanksgiving >>We can do anything the other party does not object to. >Greg: at this point, I would *strenuously* object to your taking the children >out of the state. You made an alarming comment to me last fall about Steve >being a shmuck for not protecting Mimi from Lucinda's abusiveness by >snatching her and going off to avail himself of the engineering jobs in >Guatemala. You've made no attempt at all to explain or excuse this, and all >your rhetoric about my "brutalization" of the children has certainly not >assuaged my fears that you'd see yourself justified in doing the same should >your legal campaign fail. Ultimately, this all there is. I have no intention of discussing with you anything you claim I have said. However, there is no threat that my "legal campaign" will fail between now and January, which lets Thanksgiving off the hook. Moreover, I have never done anything to even remotely suggest that I would kidnap my own children. I have sworn before them and you that I would never kidnap my own children. The 51 hours a week of visitation I am getting afford me 47 hours more than I would need to kidnap my children, and yet I have not done so. On the weekend you went to Florida, you gave me an extra 24 hours to work in, and yet I did not kidnap my children. The airport is 15 minutes away--and the children and I have been to the airport--yet I have not kidnapped my children. There is more that I could say--that I am hardly willing to incur felony charges; that I cannot hide and do business; that I will not sacrifice my future over this; that people like me are imprisoned or killed in Latin America; that I cannot regard it as a good thing for the children to do to them what your mother did to you; etc.--but _everything_ I could say is really a secondary consideration. All that matters is that I have said I would not kidnap my children, and my honor is all that matters to me in life. You know this, and you go so far as to brag about it in your Email. I don't think you believe any of the horrible things you've paid your lawyer to say about me, but you have my word about this, so you know you have no cause for doubt. So the bottom line is this: are you going to deny my mother's family what is probably their last opportunity to see her only grandchildren? I wish there were something we could do about seeing Deborah and the boys and Pam and Kevin, but there isn't. This is what can be done in the time available, and the power is solely yours. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Thanksgiving [I have new mail from you today, so I think I must have forgotten to send this last week. --GSS] >>We can do anything the other party does not object to. >Greg: at this point, I would *strenuously* object to your taking the children >out of the state. You made an alarming comment to me last fall about Steve >being a shmuck for not protecting Mimi from Lucinda's abusiveness by >snatching her and going off to avail himself of the engineering jobs in >Guatemala. You've made no attempt at all to explain or excuse this, and all >your rhetoric about my "brutalization" of the children has certainly not >assuaged my fears that you'd see yourself justified in doing the same should >your legal campaign fail. Ultimately, this all there is. I have no intention of discussing with you anything you claim I have said. However, there is no threat that my "legal campaign" will fail between now and January, which lets Thanksgiving off the hook. Moreover, I have never done anything to even remotely suggest that I would kidnap my own children. I have sworn before them and you that I would never kidnap my own children. The 51 hours a week of visitation I am getting afford me 47 hours more than I would need to kidnap my children, and yet I have not done so. On the weekend you went to Florida, you gave me an extra 24 hours to work in, and yet I did not kidnap my children. The airport is 15 minutes away--and the children and I have been to the airport--yet I have not kidnapped my children. There is more that I could say--that I am hardly willing to incur felony charges; that I cannot hide and do business; that I will not sacrifice my future over this; that people like me are imprisoned or killed in Latin America; that I cannot regard it as a good thing for the children to do to them what your mother did to you; etc.--but _everything_ I could say is really a secondary consideration. All that matters is that I have said I would not kidnap my children, and my honor is all that matters to me in life. You know this, and you go so far as to brag about it in your Email. I don't think you believe any of the horrible things you've paid your lawyer to say about me, but you have my word about this, so you know you have no cause for doubt. So the bottom line is this: are you going to deny my mother's family what is probably their last opportunity to see her only grandchildren? I wish there were something we could do about seeing Deborah and the boys and Pam and Kevin, but there isn't. This is what can be done in the time available, and the power is solely yours. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Thanksgiving [Is this not getting through? I have more new mail from you today... [I have new mail from you today, so I think I must have forgotten to send this last week. --GSS]] >>We can do anything the other party does not object to. >Greg: at this point, I would *strenuously* object to your taking the children >out of the state. You made an alarming comment to me last fall about Steve >being a shmuck for not protecting Mimi from Lucinda's abusiveness by >snatching her and going off to avail himself of the engineering jobs in >Guatemala. You've made no attempt at all to explain or excuse this, and all >your rhetoric about my "brutalization" of the children has certainly not >assuaged my fears that you'd see yourself justified in doing the same should >your legal campaign fail. Ultimately, this all there is. I have no intention of discussing with you anything you claim I have said. However, there is no threat that my "legal campaign" will fail between now and January, which lets Thanksgiving off the hook. Moreover, I have never done anything to even remotely suggest that I would kidnap my own children. I have sworn before them and you that I would never kidnap my own children. The 51 hours a week of visitation I am getting afford me 47 hours more than I would need to kidnap my children, and yet I have not done so. On the weekend you went to Florida, you gave me an extra 24 hours to work in, and yet I did not kidnap my children. The airport is 15 minutes away--and the children and I have been to the airport--yet I have not kidnapped my children. There is more that I could say--that I am hardly willing to incur felony charges; that I cannot hide and do business; that I will not sacrifice my future over this; that people like me are imprisoned or killed in Latin America; that I cannot regard it as a good thing for the children to do to them what your mother did to you; etc.--but _everything_ I could say is really a secondary consideration. All that matters is that I have said I would not kidnap my children, and my honor is all that matters to me in life. You know this, and you go so far as to brag about it in your Email. I don't think you believe any of the horrible things you've paid your lawyer to say about me, but you have my word about this, so you know you have no cause for doubt. So the bottom line is this: are you going to deny my mother's family what is probably their last opportunity to see her only grandchildren? I wish there were something we could do about seeing Deborah and the boys and Pam and Kevin, but there isn't. This is what can be done in the time available, and the power is solely yours. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: This Coming Weekend You do not have my sanction to withhold my daughter from me. You are wrong to attempt to disrupt my relationship with my daughter. You are acting to her injury. Complicating her and attempting to complicate me does not mitigate the injury, nor does it absolve you of sole responsibility. I asked you the last time you tried this to commit that it would never happen again. You did not make that commitment. I refuse to disguise the nature of what you are doing. Greg Swann To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Homey Don't Play That >>You do not have my sanction to withhold my daughter from me. >> >>You are wrong to attempt to disrupt my relationship with my daughter. >>You are acting to her injury. Complicating her and attempting to >>complicate me does not mitigate the injury, nor does it absolve you of >>sole responsibility. >> >>I asked you the last time you tried this to commit that it would never >>happen again. You did not make that commitment. >> >>I refuse to disguise the nature of what you are doing. >Permitting you to continue to berate me is self-destructive. How do you regard yourself as having been berated? >If you are not willing to negotiate Negotiation is precisely what is not happening in this exchange. You offered me a false choice among two ultimata. Even then, you assured that no reasonable negotiation could take place by again manipulating Meredith into unwittingly giving up part of her time with me. I refuse to pretend for your benefit that your behavior is anything other than dictatorial. This is destructive of your character, but, more importantly, it is damaging to Meredith. I'm sure Dr. Kigin would tell you this, as well, if your were forthcoming with her. I repeat: You do not have my sanction to withhold my daughter from me. I refuse to disguise the nature of what you are doing. Greg Swann To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Homey Don't Play That >And *I* repeat: Permitting you to berate me and otherwise abuse me is >self-destructive. I am grateful to you for continuing to provide ostensive definitions of what you mean by terms you use repeatedly. >I am sick to death of reading and hearing rhetoric that bears more >relation to your own projections than to anything that has to do with >me. Fromm said in a court document to which you attested on May 25: "During the time the parties were residing together, Ann merely logged the jobs as they were billed, recorded deposits as invoices were paid, and recorded checks written on the business account." Contrast that with this: >MaRandolph: You started to talk about finances, how do you do it? >JDanvers: I handle the whole package. >MaRandolph: You do? I could sure use that kind of help! >JDanvers: I even do the books for G's business. I can document hundreds of examples of duplicitousness like this and worse. In my darkest nightmares, I never foresaw that you would do this to yourself. You cannot, however, dispute that you have done it. You can make any argument you want about your interior existence. The evidence available to the apprehension of any observer argues a different case. This particular example is useful in this discussion because it neatly illustrates a working hypothesis: that your motive in your interaction with me is to take whatever you can grab. For example, you have preyed upon me financially all Summer, even though you knew, even though you admitted and even though I demonstrated to you that the payments demanded of me exceed my total income. You have temporarily convinced the state to deny my parentage of my daughter, and you said to Dr. Joy that Wright is paying you $500 per month child support--except that sometimes he can't. I am commanded to pay $1,260 per month for Cameron--plus much more in other mandated payments--including $450 a month for daycare that Cameron, fortunately, does not suffer. There is no justice at all in sometimes collecting $500 a month for Meredith and insisting upon six times that for Cameron. For example, even though you have by far the lion's share of the so-called 'community assets', you have complained bitterly that you don't have everything, and you have gone so far as to refer to that which I retain as "my property". Perhaps as a matter of coincidence, you avoided answering me about my mother's Thanksgiving invitation until after I had transferred even _more_ of our 'community assets' to your control. I did this as a matter of good will, even though the only financial consequence to me will be to increase my tax liability, which tax liability I will undoubtedly bear in total. Perhaps as a matter of coincidence, you have continued to avoid answering me about my mother's Thanksgiving invitation while insisting that your messages must be answered instantaneously. In fact, even while I have argued that you may _not_ be wholly mercenary, and while I have attempted to demonstrate that conjecture, you have not in any circumstance failed to behave as the mercenary hypothesis would predict. For example, while Meredith's time with me is still in deficit, Cameron's is in surplus. On the face, that would argue that you are not _entirely_ self-serving. You have argued to that end, claiming that you don't need me for babysitting purposes. However, the fact remains that Cameron has never had extra time with me that did not coincide with some activity of yours that would have occasioned your use of a babysitter. Neither child has never been permitted to come here for his or her own reasons, rather than yours. You seek to reject the conclusions I draw from the evidence available to me, and you have protested to me at various times that I have misjudged you, that your motives are pure and that you have been misunderstood. I would actually like to believe you, but the evidence demonstrating the contrary position is overwhelming. This particular imbroglio doesn't matter very much, except as it illustrates the pattern of behavior you are establishing. You found yourself in a situation where righteousness demanded that you negotiate on equal terms with me. Instead of doing that, you set Meredith up to implement your objective in advance. That way, if I object in any way at all, I'm the heavy. Had I done this to you with respect to my mother's invitation, both children would be heaving big spitballs of resentment at you. This is exactly the kind of inappropriate behavior I _know_ Dr. Kigin has warned you about. You gulled Meredith into making a decision that is not a child's to make. You refrained from playing the same game on Cameron because Cameron is lucky enough to have the protection of the law. However, you used the leverage you have with Meredith to run a different game with Cameron: if I _don't_ pretend that an ultimatum is a choice, Cameron will be deprived of the 'special outing', and I will again be the heavy. How would you distinguish this episode from the scene in Atlas Shrugged when James Taggart attempts to corner Dagny into debating "Rearden Metal is a lethal product of greed"? You do not have my sanction to withhold my daughter from me. I refuse to disguise the nature of what you are doing. >I offered you *Meredith's* proposal for her weekend. I offered you my own >for Cameron's. If neither is acceptable, make your own proposal, and I'll >consider it. Pull the Schneider ruling. Cooperate with me in my legal adoption of Meredith. Sign your name to a settlement in the form of joint legal/joint physical custody of both children with the proportions set by Dr. Joy. I am the creature of highest integrity you have ever known. If I believe you are honest, I am your tireless champion, and I will bear any burden in the service of truth. But I come to believe you are dishonest, I won't trust you with my trash. You are complaining to me that the reputation you have with me is undeserved. The evidence argues to the contrary, and I have been watching that evidence very carefully. I am freely willing to concede that _you_ do not believe your actions are mercenary. I expect that any competent and painstaking observer would argue that they are. In any case, ignoring everything else, you are using your legal advantage to steal my daughter, and you are attempting to use your theft of my daughter to steal my son. You may never repair your reputation with me, and, if you do, it will take years. But you will not even _begin_ to do so as long as you continue to deploy my children as weapons. If you want to be treated as a person of honor, behave as one. You do not have my sanction to withhold my daughter from me. I refuse to disguise the nature of what you are doing. If you want to negotiate as equals, leave your guns outside: Pull the Schneider ruling. Cooperate with me in my legal adoption of Meredith. Sign your name to a settlement in the form of joint legal/joint physical custody of both children with the proportions set by Dr. Joy. Gregory Stephen Swann To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Visitation Issues >I'm sorry if this is a disappointment to your and your family. They were expecting it. >Frankly, I feel that nothing I can do under the circumstances will satisfy >you. I feel that I am in a double bind of being 'damned if I do, and damned >if I don't.' > >As I've said before, it is *completely* clear to me that we cannot >successfully, and with reasonable good will, negotiate even the smallest >details. You did not attempt to negotiate with me. You delivered an ultimatum. I cooperated with it literally. _Had_ you asked me, instead of pretending that a false choice among ultimata is negotiation, I would have agreed. As I said, it's not that big a deal, and I most emphatically do not want the children to be treated differently. Plus which, I suggested that exact arrangement the last time you withheld Meredith. >I need to let you know that this conflict (as with many others) confused me >terribly. You have criticized me a number of times for this: > >>>Neither child has never been permitted to come here for his or her own >reasons, >>rather than yours. You told me on Friday that Cameron had wanted to come early. You seemed to imply that it was somehow _my_ guilt that you didn't bring him over. >And yet, when *Meri* requested a special night alone with you on Thursday, >and a change to Thursday/Friday this week so she could spend Sunday with >Steve, you had endless objections. I had no objections. None. I objected to being asked to pretend that being forced and volunteering are the same thing. I will continue to make that objection every time to you attempt to use force. Moreover, swapping 17 hours for 24 has nothing to do with the children being "permitted to come here for his or her own reasons, rather than yours". The children do not need to come here _less_ than they do now. >And you refused to have her there I refused nothing. >And >yet, when I picked her up yesterday and asked you if you two had decided on >another time, your response to me was, "No.... (???).... Don't play games >with me...." Make the Schneider ruling go away and we can move on to the next step. Leave it in place, and continue to use it against the children, and we're going to have problems for _years._ >We did also discuss the general concept of variations in the kids' visitation >schedule, however small or large they might be. You lack the power to vary Cameron's schedule. >Her feeling is that this is >not a good idea, that the children need as much regularity as possible. Duh. >She therefore suggested that, rather than keeping one >schedule for most of the time, and occasionally varying it to allow her to >spend time with Steve when he is here, that it would be better for Meri to go >to a regular, but different, visitation schedule That is, because I objected to your withholding Meredith, you will withhold her as a matter of policy. Because I objected to treating the children differently, you will introduce a permanent schism between them. Nice. >that will allow her to spend >consistent time with you both without having to make changes. Why would Meredith need time with Wright any more than Cameron does? Their situations are identical: he is your boyfriend and your intended. That's good for you, and I hope it's good for them. But the children don't _need_ time with him, they simply enjoy it. I don't begrudge them their enjoyment; I hope the revel in it. But they _need_ to process this divorce, and this nonsense impedes that processing in two horrible ways. I will speak to Dr. Kigin on Monday to make sure this is what she intended. >I therefore will get in touch with Sandy with some proposals for both this >and for the coming holidays, and she and Mr. Miller can hassle out the >details for us. I can't afford additional legal bills. I will instruct my attorneys to ignore trivia. >Since I had something specific in mind for the coming week, I did ask Toni >what to do when there were times that I was able to offer you more time with >the children. She reiterated that, as long as there was no perception of >possible loss on your part, and no real negotiation required, that I could do >so. Are you saying that it's okay for the children to have extra time with me so long as you don't call ahead to find out if I'm home? The business about negotiation without negotiation makes no sense, and I can't believe you'd need a Ph.D. to tell you that the children need, could profit from and want more time with me, and that you have the power to grant their wishes. You have starved them for months, and for what...? >I do not know if, when she was there, Meri brought up scheduling another >special night with you She didn't. >or what you might have told her. I didn't tell her that you lied to her. I told her that it would be polite to consult me before making decisions that affect our time together. It's a shame she has to take on the adult role. >I do want to >reiterate that, if you and she want to do so, it's fine with me. And what if she wants two nights? Like the last time. >Likewise, I think it important for you and Steve to be similarly cordial, >which you certainly were not when we picked up Meri yesterday. Standing >there glaring, which you were I was not. I'm sorry that his shoes pinch. I'm sorry that yours do, too. If he's uncomfortable, he's certainly free to abstain from coming here. You may be assured that I will never be "cordial" with Wright. This has nothing to do with anger or resentment or anything else. It has to do with treating people as they deserve to be treated, responding to them as they have behaved. As I've said, I wish I could extend the same justice to you, and I forebear for the children's benefit, not yours. To repeat: we have no problem with negotiation. The problem we have is that you seem to believe that the upper hand you hold temporarily makes is unneccessary for you to negotiate. In law, this is true, but I refuse--and will continue to refuse--to pretend that ultimata backed by the force of law are in any sense "negotiations". You can do what you want, of course, but it's the children, not me, whom you are hurting. You did this to yourself, Ann. You sold Meredith to Wright in order to avoid playing straight through this divorce, and I think you're only discovering now what it's going to cost. When I pointed out in Dr. Joy's office that, should you die, Meredith will go to a stranger, rather than to her father, I think that's the first time the true import of what you've done came clear to you. Similarly, even if you _don't_ marry Wright, you have already ceded joint legal and joint physical custody to him; you won't have the power to deny to him what you are so steadfastly trying to deny to me. Should you attempt to do so, you will be compelled to argue that your years with Meredith are paramount after you have already argued that my years with Meredith are meaningless, this his sperm is immense when needed to deny my parentage and insignificant when it threatens yours. This is stupid and comical, exactly the kind of moronic contradiction I _love_ to laugh about. Except for this: you are waging this war with my children. Steve Wright ejaculated in Meredith's behalf and then ignored her for years. You can excuse him however you like for his neglect, and I really don't care. The fact is that I raised Meredith and he didn't, and we don't have to take my word for it: [940703AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter apart, and of course I won't do that). Greg fully believes that the only important connection between a parent and a child is the one built through the years of their relationship. I certainly agree that it is primary, but it is not the only one. I can't know what will be important for Meredith, can't assume that what is important to Greg will be so for her, as well. [940710SW.TXT] [Ann Swann] >Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my >mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg >will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." >No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, >Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what >I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* >know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter >apart, and of course I won't do that). [Steve Wright] Oh, darling, I'm sorry. Of course you can't; I only wish you didn't have that dilemma in your life. Greg loved her and connected with her and was there for her. I've spent more time than you can imagine, wondering about how and where and if I might meet Meredith as her birth father. Even if there is ever a time when I will also be a step-father, I *know* that Greg will *always* be her father, and that she will *always* need him as her daddy. [941114AS.TXT] [Steve Wright] >>Something else that I've been experiencing: I deeply invested myself >>in my second (my "own", I started to say) family and child, trying to >>give to Lucinda and Mimi everything I hadn't been allowed to give you >>and Meri. And I came to feel that attention to Meri (and implicitly >>you) was disloyal to Mimi (and implicitly Lucinda). [Ann Swann] I certainly understand this. I've told you how much I've admired the ways in which I felt that you *did* preserve the boundaries between our families. And I guess I was frightened of blurring those boundaries, myself, so I *didn't* mention to you my disappointment over this sooner (although I wasn't really comfortable talking with you in those early years, myself). And, of course, another issue has been (and still is) my own sense of loyalty to Greg as Meri's father - as the man who has given *so* much to her and to me on her behalf. This is still a terrible dilemma for me, that one part of me *never* wants him to feel that I regret making him Meri's father, while another part of me *deeply* regrets the choice I made. But he's been a good and loving father who has *completely* taken responsibility for her, and who has *never* wavered in that commitment - even when another man might have.... [941128AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] I will always love this man, Steve. He stood by me the best way he knew how when I was pregnant, when my mom died, through all the stuff I've gone through all these years. He is a good man. He's given me all he could. He's been a good and loving father to the kids. He hasn't been all I wanted, but he *has* given me a *lot.* He gave me the freedom to be home with my children, to be able to greet every single day of the last almost-six years with the knowledge that I didn't have to leave them in someone else's care. He's worked like a dog to do it. Whatever imperfections he has, I can*not* let myself get caught up in a bitterness that will poison me and my kids. So, for whatever reason, Steve Wright ignored my daughter for the first six years after her birth. And then he decides to assert his fatherhood--or rather, _you_ decide to assert his fatherhood--and the sole consequence is to injure Meredith terribly, to rob her of her identity and to pour salt on the wounds caused by this divorce. It's possible that he will make a decent stepfather. I don't claim to know. I've never observed him to behave as an adult, but I haven't paid much attention to him. But he will not become Meredith's father by robbing her of her _real_ father, and he will do her nothing but harm by trying. He did her no good before, but at least he did her no harm. Now he's doing her nothing but harm, as are you, and the two of you are inflicting this horrible injury on _both_ children for nothing more than a vain and stupid legal advantage. You have no hope that I will ever be particularly "cordial" to either of you. There's some chance that you might earn my respect, but certainly not by doing things I think are vile. But what you _really_ want is for me to stop pointing out the nature of what you are doing. I will be happy to oblige. As soon as you stop doing it. Repeating: If you want to negotiate as equals, leave your guns outside: Pull the Schneider ruling. Cooperate with me in my legal adoption of Meredith. Sign your name to a settlement in the form of joint legal/joint physical custody of both children with the proportions set by Dr. Joy. Greg Swann To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Visitation Issues Coming back to this briefly, because some other stuff occurred to me. I want you to understand that I am perfectly game for genuine negotiation. I have come forth with offers from the very beginning, and I will continue to do so. I highlight this now because of this: >I cannot even >consider, let alone voluntarily agree to, your taking the children out of >state until such a time that we have a signed, final agreement in place. The words "signed, final agreement" are interesting, insofar as the path we are on right now will result in no aggreement and no signatures. Whatever is the final outcome of our divorce, it will be shoved down our throats by the courts _unless_ we arrive at a negotiated settlement. It could be that Fromm has led you to believe that I will suddenly cave in and consent to something like that horrible offer you made in February. Such an expectation would be unwarranted. Assuming I lose absolutely everything, I will do a lot better than what you offered me, and if my parentage of Meredith is ultimately denied by the Court of Apprals, Wright will be obliged to pay me 6.5 years of overdue child support, plus interest. Plus there are some other interesting wrinkles. I can't imagine anyone pursuing anything but equity in a negotiation, but if Fromm has told you to go for broke, she hasn't told you the whole story. The bottom line is this: if you want to negotiate, let's do it. If you want to flex your muscles, I will never fail to hold up a mirror to you. >She therefore suggested that, rather than keeping one >schedule for most of the time, and occasionally varying it to allow her to >spend time with Steve when he is here, that it would be better for Meri to go >to a regular, but different, visitation schedule that will allow her to spend >consistent time with you both without having to make changes. Here's an opportuntity to negotiate as equals. I suggest that we modify the schedule for both children as follows: You drop the kids off here on Wednesday evening at 8 pm. You pick them up (or I deliver them) at 8 am Sunday morning. That puts the children with you 3.5 days and with me 3.5 days. At present, I have them for 31 non-sleeping hours, and you have Meri for ~32 non-sleeping hours. After this change, I will have Meri for ~30 non-sleeping hours, and you will have her for ~33 non-sleeping hours. My time with Cameron goes up, but it's time when I have to devote some of my attention to money work. Your time with Cameron goes down, but you gain the full day Sunday, every week. I will have them bathed, clothed, and fed on Sunday morning, so you can hit the road like a fireman. This is much more agreeable to me, even though it costs me a big chunk of cotton-candy time, because I'm not in the cotton-candy business; I want something closer to normal life with my children, and this is a way of achieving it. Likewise, this gives both of them the time with me they need. Finally, it occurred to me to suggest to you that you speak to my friend Ken Hooper about some of this stuff. I don't know that it would do a lot of good, but he's good at explaining things, and it might help you to hear my concerns from someone who is not me. He's agreed to talk with you if you want to talk with him. He's at khooper@wsp1.wspice.com. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Visitation Issues Cc: Bcc: khooper@wsp1.wspice.com, mikea@halcyon.com, gswann@mailhost.primenet.com X-Attachments: Following up. I spoke to Dr. Kigin on the telephone. I think you may have misunderstood what she said to you. First, she affirmed that time with me is of a higher priority for Meredith than is time with Wright. In our last session, I explained my position on paternity and she said, "You don't have to sell _me_ on that," which is why your summary of her remarks surprised me so. >She therefore suggested that, rather than keeping one >schedule for most of the time, and occasionally varying it to allow her to >spend time with Steve when he is here, that it would be better for Meri to go >to a regular, but different, visitation schedule that will allow her to spend >consistent time with you both without having to make changes. This is >something that I hadn't really considered, but seems like an excellent idea. She disavows saying this. She said that she did not advocate this, but that _your attorney_ might suggest something like this. I expressed my standing concern that treating the children differently would encourage them to conclude that one of the other of them is in some way at fault for this divorce, and she confirmed this possibility. I outlined my suggestion about changing the schedule to 3.5/3.5 and she conceded that this sounds reasonable. (Incidentally, one of the things I like about her is that she doesn't make brash pronouncements.) >I had been looking at my calendar, and noticed that, for the next two weeks, >Meri has early release from school. This Friday, at 1:00 pm; next, at 2 pm. > There are parent-teacher conferences being scheduled, and I haven't received >my appointment yet (so there is a chance that it could fall on one of these >days, after 1 or 2), but I thought, if it would be convenient, that the kids >would enjoy my dropping them off early after we picked Meri up. Please let >me know if I should plan on this. Plan on this. Phone or send mail to let me know when to expect you. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Roller Skating Party >She came up with the creative idea of having both of us there for half the >time so that we can both see how well she skates. I'm fine with that. If >that's ok with you, I'd suggest your going for the first half, me for the >second so I can take them home. If you'd like to do a quick dinner >beforehand, I'll be happy to drop them both off at 5 at your house, then meet >you at the rink at 7. > >The party is from 6-8 at Skateland, 7 East Southern, Mesa (833-7775). > Admission is $3 for Meri (and Cam, I think); parents are free. That wouls be great. I'll have dinner ready at 5. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Bug Jail >This evening, when you made your "joke" to Meri about her going to "bug >jail" for a 'violation' of insect safety rules, I really felt like you >were laughing at the rules I had established. Your doing so in front >of Meredith makes me quite uncomfortable, as I feel it undermines my >parenting. In fact, I was simply making a joke. I hadn't thought about the policy, since I recognized it as being inherently unenforceable, which Meri proceeded to prove. After I got this mail, I _did_ think about it, and I'm glad I did. A ban of this sort with a child like Meredith is bad parenting in three regards: 1. It is unenforceable and therefore contra-utilitarian. Meredith is _going_ to touch bugs, and there's nothing you can do to stop this short of following her everywhere. She is very far from rash; she steers well clear of bugs she _knows_ can hurt her, such as wasps and bees. But a blanket prohbition against touching bugs--even bugs she _knows_ are prefectly safe--invites violation, first from inattention, later from contempt. Persistent violation of this policy invites violation of other policies, which in turn invites contempt of you for setting unreasonable policies. _You_ are undermining your parenting. 2. It is needless fear mongering. You didn't know that you were seeing a Black Widow, and the field guides I'm sending Meredith make it seem likely that what you saw was not a Black Widow. In any case, you were reacting to _your_ fear of venomous spiders, not Meredith's. As we both know, Meredith he begun to express a vast host of groundless fears, and there is no benefit to adding to this unease. An appropriate expression of prudence might have been to entreat Meredith to touch nothing she cannot identify--we do this with respect to desert plants, and it's about 85% effective--and to resolve to help her identify the spider you saw--which is what I'm doing now. In any case, inducing in her your fear, or at least commanding her to behave as though she suffers from your fear, does nothing useful, and potentially does great harm. 3. It is contrary to the objectives of a parent. The ideal end state of a parent is to raise children who do not need parents. Not mere grown-ups, but rational, self-loving individualists who are fully competent to manage their own lives successfully and fearlessly. A blanket prohibition does not promote growth, it prevents it. We know Meredith _will_ touch bugs, so our job as parents it to make sure she knows which bugs _not_ to touch. We cannot police her behavior exhaustively, so we must rely on her to manage her own life in progressively enlarging spheres of activity. We can assist in this--as with giving her these field guides--but, ultimately, we have no choice but to trust her and hope that her mistakes don't kill her. This is an expression of the global policy that our job is to teach Meredith how to live, not to strive to prevent her from dying nor to instill in her a fear of life. >I would appreciate it if you would try to refrain from these kind of >"jokes" in the future. I will strive to avoid making jokes in your presence. Unless I forget . --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: "Bug Jail" and Other Issues >>It looks as though you have missed the point I was trying to raise. My >>problem was not with your "making jokes in my presence." My problem was that >>you were making a joke of the rule that I had established, about which my >>objection is that you did it in *Meredith's* presence. Again, I think that >>any kind of ridicule of me, or of limits I have set, undermines my authority >>with Meredith. You're a little overwrought. I did not make a joke of the rule in front of Meredith, and I did not ridicule you. You informed me that you had issued an edict to the effect that Meredith would never touch an insect again, and while you were informing me thus, Meredith was playing with bugs. I said, "Meredith, you'd better watch out or you're going to end up in bug jail." If you think Meredith's respect for you is so tenuous that something as benign as that is a threat to you, maybe you should think about whether arbitrary decrees such as the bug rule serve you or undermine you. In any case, I'll try not to do it again, bearing in mind that I love to make jokes about comical situations as much as Meredith loves to touch bugs, and we might forget. >>I feel it is critically important that we do not undermine each other's >>authority with the children. I don't care if you think the policy I set is >>stupid, counter-productive, an example of "bad parenting" on my part, or >>whatever. However, if you choose to bring up any of those opinions with me, >>it should not be in front of the children - even implicitly, in the form of a >>"joke." Ann, Meredith was playing with bugs on the ground before I made the comment about "bug jail." Evidently your authority over (not "authority with") her had already been severely compromised, probably because she recognized your arbitrary decree for what it was. The problem is not that you fear that the children will cease to obey you without question or thought; they don't do that anyway. The problem is that you expect me to cultivate the pretense that the bug rule makes sense, when in fact it does not. I don't ridicule you in front of the children, and I do not seek to undermine you as a parent. It would do me no good to have the children believe that their mother has no sense. But if you are going to cook up rules like this and expect me to back you up, you're going to have to check with me before you announce the legislation. You made no effort to do that, and have declared that you do not care whether I think the bug rule is good parenting or bad. You're no more likely to have my mindless acquiescence than theirs. For what it's worth, my whole approach to making changes with the children is very different. I seek, ideally, to get _them_ to conclude that the change is justified. Then my enforcement job consists of reminding them of what they have resolved to do, rather than what I have commanded them to do. I seek empowerment and self-determination, not obedience. It would never occur to me to think of myself as having authority over my children. I have a custodial responsibility of them, but I don't translate that into any sort of arbitrary power. I recognize that my age, my size, the timbre of my voice, and my skill at controlling my eyes grant me a vast host of subtle tools of domination, and I watch myself _constantly_ to make sure that I am _not_ dominating my children--nor anyone else for that matter. >>I agree with you that a blanket ban on touching bugs is unenforceable. My >>intention, however, is to break into her impulsiveness by giving her a >>different blueprint for her behavior. My intention for having her examine >>bugs with her eyes, at a safe distance, with her hands nowhere near them is >>to help her "rewire" her automatic behavior. And again, this is merely an elaborate euphemism for domination, and good intentions don't change that. >>Your continued bashing of me as a parent only helps perpetuate my bad >>feelings about you. I have not bashed you, Ann. I have legitimate concerns over the raising of our children, and I've made perfectly cogent points, in a perfectly civil way, in order to try to persuade you that those concerns are valid. Continuing to scavenge for grievances does nothing to resolve our differences. Why not stop? >>...were able to confirm that the spider we had >>seen *was* a black widow, probably a male (much smaller than the female and >>not dangerous) or possibly an immature female (whose abdomen had not yet >>swelled in preparation for laying eggs; quite dangerous). Not unless it was flailing on its back when your "eyes fell on the hourglass on its abdomen" and somebody had brought it all the way from the Southeast. The marking is on the underside, and they don't live here. >>>>An appropriate expression of prudence might have been to entreat Meredith >>to >>touch nothing she cannot identify >> >>This would be effective if it were not for: Except, as I said, it _is_ effective. Not completely, but the effectiveness improves consistently. >>1) Meri's arrogance about her own knowledge base. Somehow she manages to avoid cuddling wasps despite her overconfidence, and that overconfidence does not keep her from learning all she possibly can about insects. The ones that can hurt her are the ones that fascinate her the most. If you give her information rather than commands, she'll pick it up quickly. >>2) >>We know Meredith _will_ touch bugs, so our job as parents it to make >>sure she >>>>knows which bugs _not_ to touch. >> >>This could only be possible if *we* had perfect knowledge of which bugs those >>were, if it were *possible* for us to unmistakeably know which bugs those >>were without a lifetime study of insects. No. You and I know which bugs not to touch--and when I'm with Meri, I do end up touching quite a few of them--despite the fact that we are not entymologists. >>And giving her field guides is only perfectly helpful if she could somehow >>commit the entire database to mind, or if she *always* carried the books >>around with her and paused to consult them to identify insects before she >>touched them. Both of these seems unrealistic to me. Ann, she doesn't need to have intimate knowledge of the entire animal kingdom in order to avoid the relatively few dangerous critters she's likely to encounter. >>You seem to be implying that, at some point in our children's development it >>is somehow "good parenting" to sit idly by as we watch our child do something >>life-threatening. I have to disagree. If I was with Cameron (age 47) as he >>distractedly stepped off a curb in front of an oncoming bus, I would not hold >>myself back from reaching for him to prevent his death because, by that time, >>he should have 'learned how to live.' The analogy is hyperbolic and specious. I have not quarreled with you stopping Meredith from touching a spider you thought was dangerous--I'm _glad_ you did. The issue is the bug rule, not the instance that gave rise to it. >I am not trying, and have not tried, to "induce Meri in my fear (that I don't >have)," or to "command her to behave as though she suffers from my fear (that >I don't have)." However, I *am* commanding her to behave in recognition of >the fact that certain aspects of the universe are dangerous to her. What an End-State Theory _actually_ seeks is for people to exhibit the _consequence_ of the theorist's reasoning - without the _cause,_ reasoning. The theorist wants to induce a state whereby people demonstrate by their actions that they _understand_ and _agree with_ his chosen ought. How does he do this? By forbidding them the knowledge and practice of any alternative. He seeks to cause other people to make evident their "goodness", by his standards, by forbidding them choice. His first error is acting as if a person can "know" something is the truth or the good _without having discovered it._ His second mistake is assuming that, where someone is prevented from doing his idea of evil, he is therefore _choosing_ to do the good... Both of these are obviously false to fact. The End-State Theorist _cannot_ achieve his ends by the means he chooses. His actions are attempts to violate The Law Of Identity, to declare at pout-point that the universe _must_ be what he _wants_ it to be. It does not matter that the Sleepwalkers go along with him, even _cheer_ him. He cannot achieve his end, and the more he tries, the more frustrated he will become. He wants to change _minds,_ but he rejects free persuasion, the _only_ means that can achieve _that_ end. The bug rule was a bad idea. I have no doubt that you instituted it out of concern for Meri's safety, but it was impulsive and ill-advised. Meredith loves bugs to distraction, and attempting to rob her of contact with bugs does neither you nor her any good. If it is unenforceable, it will only lead to contempt. _You_ are undermining your parenting, to a far greater extent than I ever could with a joke. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: "Bug Jail" and Other Issues >>>>>She therefore suggested that, rather than keeping one >>>>>schedule for most of the time, and occasionally varying it to allow her to >>>>>spend time with Steve when he is here, that it would be better for Meri to >>go >>>>>to a regular, but different, visitation schedule that will allow her to >>spend >>>>>consistent time with you both without having to make changes. This is >>>>>something that I hadn't really considered, but seems like an excellent >>idea. >>>> >>>>She disavows saying this. She said that she did not advocate this, >> >>I spent a *lot* of time with her discussing this, both during our Friday >>appointment and when I saw her after her appointment with Steve on the >>afternoon (before) I received this mail from you. Still, after this, I >>wondered if I *had* possibly misunderstood her, so I called her immediately. >> I explained that I was concerned that I'd misunderstood her, and read her >>these paragraphs from your mail. Her response? "No, you did not >>misunderstand me; that's what I said." I made notes during the conversation. Shall I begin to tape the calls instead? Would you agree to attend a session with her and me, so this can be clarified without anybody having to take anything on faith? _All_ of what you're justifying in the name of Dr. Kigin's recommendations is coming to me second-hand, through you. She hasn't recommended any of this to me--and when I asked her whether she had recommended any such thing to you, she said she hadn't. I do not believe that Dr. Kigin regards it as crucial to the well-being of the children that they have their schedules changed in order to accommodate the vicissitudes of Steve Wright, and I do not believe that Dr. Kigin regards it as crucial that you refuse to negotiate with me in any meaningful way. However, with regard to the visitation, I've offered an alternative that solves all the problems you claim to want solved--yet you've carefully ignored it, and I don't understand why. Here is the offer again: Here's an opportuntity to negotiate as equals. I suggest that we modify the schedule for both children as follows: You drop the kids off here on Wednesday evening at 8 pm. You pick them up (or I deliver them) at 8 am Sunday morning. That puts the children with you 3.5 days and with me 3.5 days. At present, I have them for 31 non-sleeping hours, and you have Meri for ~32 non-sleeping hours. After this change, I will have Meri for ~30 non-sleeping hours, and you will have her for ~33 non-sleeping hours. My time with Cameron goes up, but it's time when I have to devote some of my attention to money work. Your time with Cameron goes down, but you gain the full day Sunday, every week. I will have them bathed, clothed, and fed on Sunday morning, so you can hit the road like a fireman. This is much more agreeable to me, even though it costs me a big chunk of cotton-candy time, because I'm not in the cotton-candy business; I want something closer to normal life with my children, and this is a way of achieving it. Likewise, this gives both of them the time with me they need. >>As I've said, she and I reexamined the >>practice of trading time with you for time with Steve because of his being >>constrained to only visiting during the weekend times that Meri regularly >>spends with you. The only way he can _possibly_ see Meredith is by taking from her her time with me, given the current schedule. Except that he saw Dr. Kigin on a Monday. Again, this is not a huge problem. Simply accept the 3.5/3.5 deal I offered you, and he can have Sundays all the time. Truly, he should move here if he wants time with the children, just as he should move to Massachusetts if he wants time with his daughter, but that's not my problem. >I think *you* might have understood what she said to *you.* First, she has >affirmed to both me and Steve that (between the two of you) Meri's >*relationship* with you is the primary one (no surprise; that's the way it >should be). That is *not* the same thing as saying that, at any given >moment, "time with you is of a higher priority for Meri than is time with >Steve," or "time with Steve is of *no* priority." What it means, Ann, is that if there must be a choice between the children spending time with Steve Wright and spending time with their father, spending time with their father is more important. We aren't talking about any given time; we're talking about time they spend with me. All of it is important, all of it is more important than time spent with Steve Wright, and all of it is irreplaceable. You have been unilaterally deciding to dictate precisely the opposite; if Wright is in town, spending time with him takes precedence. Furthermore, time the children spend with me is obviously of cursory importance to you; Meredith's time continues to be in deficit, and the children aren't allowed to come here for their own reasons, only yours. When you do this, you act to the childrens' injury. _That_ is what it means. >>Dr. Hembree-Kigin has repeatedly affirmed how important Steve is to Meri. That's very nice. >>Meri perceives having Steve in her life as a real positive. That's wonderful. (Are you aware that despite the fact that exactly the same argument obtains for both children, in your last message you mention Meri's name 35 times and Cameron's once--an imaginary Cameron who is 47 years old and is hit by a bus? You are no less Cameron's mother than Meredith's, but in your mind he is completely beside the point. This continues to bother me very much.) There are a great many people that both children like. Having contact with those people is a matter of importance, and without doubt the children would be hurt if they could not have contact with those people. But in no wise should they have contact with those people _instead of_ having contact with their mother and father. This is the position you are taking, and it's absurd. Steve Wright is your boyfriend and your intended. It's right and appropriate that the children should have a relationship with him, and I'm very glad that they like him. But, omitting notice of the Schneider ruling, if you two broke up, the children's relationship with Wright would end. That would be hurtful to them, but that's life. They have spent much more time with Debbie Reyher than they have with Wright, and they missed her at first when she stopped working for us. They've gotten over it. Because you have sold Meredith to Wright in order to steal her from me, you cannot escape him as easily as you would any other boyfriend, but the fact remains that their relationship with him is _through_ you, a consequence of _your_ relationship with him. This is in no way comparable to their relationship with me, and for this reason on top of every other, attempting to substitute him for me is wrong. >In the appointment she had with Steve when he was last here, Toni indicated >to him, as she has indicated to me, that it would not be wise to decrease >Meri's time with him. The issue we therefore have is of protecting the time >she spends with *each* of you. As I've said, she and I reexamined the >practice of trading time with you for time with Steve because of his being >constrained to only visiting during the weekend times that Meri regularly >spends with you. And discussing this led to her recommendation, which I >still see as the only way we can avoid the trade you abhor: >...it would be better for Meri to go to a regular, but different, visitation >schedule that will allow her to spend consistent time with you both without >having to make changes. And I've offered to change the schedules of _both_ children to allow this, an offer you have ignored. I can only conclude that the only situation you will regard as satisfactory is one in which the children are treated differently, despite the fact that each of your arguments obtains for both children, if those arguments are valid, not only for Meredith. Apparently this will provide you with some new sort of legal pretext, even if it does it at the price of the childrens' well-being. Nice. You _can_ withold Meredith from her father, Ann, and you _can_ punish the children for their DNA sequences. But I will continue to call it by its name. And the fact that you feel compelled to conjure such elaborate sophisms to justify it proves that you know its name as well. >>>>She was very firm about our not continuing to even attempt to >negotiate... >>>>I can't afford additional legal bills. I will instruct my attorneys to >>>>ignore trivia. >> >>Again: on the strong advice of the kids' therapist, and following my own >>sense of what is the most effective manner of preventing and/or resolving >>disputes between us in the future, I will no longer attempt to personally >>negotiate with you any visitation logistics. I have briefed Sandy about the >>situation, and have asked her to contact Mr. Miller on my behalf. I can do >>no more than that. If you are not willing to work issues through in this >>manner, then those issues will not be worked through at all. And that would >>really be unfortunate for the children. You have decreed that you will no longer attempt to negotiate with me despite the fact that you have not made the slightest attempt since last January to negotiate anything with me at all. I do not believe that this is on the advice of Dr. Kigin. I think you are preparing to withold my daughter and attempting to cloak it in piety. "And that would really be unfortunate for the children" implies that your assertion of arbitrary power is somehow my fault. You gave away my copy of Atlas Shrugged, but you retain your own copy; you might give it another reading. >>I hope that you'll reconsider your position on this. My insistence that I wish to continue to try to negotiate with you is evidence that I am overly stubborn? One of us has steadfastly refused to countenance anything but total dominion over the other. It isn't me, Ann. You have no reason to pretend to nogotiate with respect to Meredith. At the moment, you have absolute legal power. I will not pay legal bills to have ultimata issued to me at third hand. If you want to negotiate as equals, you must restore our status to equality. Until you do, I will not disguise the nature of the transaction, nor will I initiate any action that would in any way imply that I sanction your use of arbitrary power to injure my children. You have a bad problem, and I am doing _nothing_ to obscure the nature of that problem. If you want to do what is _right,_ your course is clear. If you want to dig in your heels, I guess you'll do that. You are hurting the children and that's a bad thing, but they have me to teach them how to live free of pain. But you're hurting yourself as well, and it's damage that you'll never fully undo. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: "Bug Jail" and Other Issues While I bring up the following in another message to you, I think it deserves a message of its own. This may be the most important email our children never read, and I hope you'll consider it carefully. >...[Dr. Kigin] has affirmed to both me and Steve that (between the two of you) >Meri's *relationship* with you is the primary one (no surprise; that's the way >it should be). If you agree that that's the way it should be, then there is absolutly no reason for us to be in court at all. If you agree that that's the way it should be, then we can settle this thing and all go about the important business of our lives. If you agree that that's the way it should be, then there is no reason for you not to concede the Schneider ruling on Meredith's paternity. The sole purpose for pursuing the Scheider ruling is to bring legal force to your argument that my relationship with Meri is of no importance whatsoever. Either you believe that it is, or you believe that it isn't. If, as above, you believe that it is, then what you're telling me is that _you yourself_ believe that the Schneider ruling is nothing but a pretext. You do not need a legal pretext to withhold my children from me if you do not intend to withhold them. If you do intend to withhold them, even while you believe that their relationship with me is of primary importance, then you're admitting that you intend to act to their injury for reasons of your own choosing. I don't think you want to act to their injury, and I think you really do believe that my relationship with the children is more important to them than their relationship with Steve Wright, even if his relationship with them is of some import. The only time you maintain otherwise is when you're in court. Ann, either you know something I don't, or you haven't thought this through, or you've been badly advised. I don't know which, but by my lights there is absolutely no advantage to either of us in continuing this legal war, and there is certainly no advantage to the kids. You may already know some or all of this, but I think it ought to be laid out clearly: * Whether or not you continue to defend your paternity suit, and whether or not you win it lock, stock, and barrel, I will still be given some visitation rights to Cameron, if only to him. In other words, the absolute _worst_ I can do is some legally required visitation with Cam. * Judge Dairman will almost certainly act on the recommendation of Dr. Joy, and Dr. Joy is irrevocably opposed to splitting the children up (with good reason). * There is a short list of reasons for which a custodial parent may be allowed to leave the state by a judge; matrimony with someone in another state is not among them. In other words, since I will have at least some visitation with Cameron, you and the kids are going to be staying right here in Arizona until Cameron reaches the age of majority. My children are not going back to Seattle no matter what happens. * That is, attempting to win in court does nothing to hasten your return to Seattle because there isn't going to _be_ a return to Seattle no matter how well you do in court. If your intention is somehow to accomplish a return to Seattle, your campaign is completely futile and very destructive and expensive. Now, let's look more closely at my appeal to the Schieder ruling: * Our Special Action has a fairly good chance of success. It requires that we make new case law, not a happy cirucumstance, but Rose has done well in the Appellate Branch, the fact pattern with respect to Meredith's paternity is perfect, and your own conduct and Wright's have been ideally reprehensible. I rate the Schneider ruling at no better than 50-50. * If we don't get the Special Action, we have to go through the normal appellate turnstile. The chances are the same, but the process will take up to three years, during which time you and I will remain legally married. * If we are looking at an extended appeal, the courts will undoubtedly review my figures. You and I both know that the money I am obliged to pay you is calculated based upon a fiction; your unearned income is going to drop precipitously. * If we lose the appeal, Wright will be liable to me for 6.5 years of back child support, plus interest--and the figures you claim to need for Meredith's maintenance are quite exorbitant. Child support obligations precede all others and cannot be escaped by resort to bankruptcy. As I said before, there is no circumstance under which I will not do a lot better than the offer you made in February. I have made the following matrix to illustrate our relative positions with respect to the appeal of the Schneider ruling: +------------------------+----------------------- | GREG GETS | ANN GETS -----------+------------------------+----------------------- GREG LOSES | More than Ann's offer | Less than Ann's offer -----------+------------------------+----------------------- GREG WINS | More than Greg's offer | Less than Greg's offer -----------+------------------------+----------------------- That is, my position is win-win, and yours is lose-lose. Wright's sperm cell is an unduly important game piece, and it gives you an undue advantage, but it is at risk and it is undefended by any other piece. I have nothing but pawns, but I have a lot of them. On the other hand, you have an array of objectives--custody, moving to Seattle, marrying Wright, having more children--where I seek only custody. If we lose our appeal to the Scheider ruling, I lose nothing I haven't lost already. But if you lose the appeal, you lose a great deal. You have nothing to bring to Dairman's court with regard to custody but one sperm cell, and you've based your entire legal campaign around this pretext. If that pretext turns out not to support your weight, I have a vast array of valid arguments against your fitness for custody of which I may avail myself, all of them generously provided by you. You know the long list, so I'll keep it short: your adultery, your usurpation of custody, your many documentable lies in court, including lies about our finances, the mercenary nature of the paternity suit itself, etc. That is, if you lose, you lose a _lot._ Even if you win, you _still_ lose a lot--up to three years of marital and child-bearing time with Wright, probably the succor of your share of $2,300 per month that I do not make, years of litigation and its costs, which will no longer be borne out of my income, Wright's back child support obligations, and so on. And _none_ of that would do either of us, or the children, any good. I have no interest in making legal history or legal histronics. I'd like to stop all this. Ann, come to the table. Will you pull the Schneider ruling; cooperate with me in my legal adoption of Meredith; and sign your name to a settlement in the form of joint legal/joint physical custody of both children with the proportions set by Dr. Joy? --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Phonecalls >I'd *really* appreciate it if you would be willing to turn the TV off for a >few minutes when I call the children there. It's *so* hard to talk to them >when they're mesmerized.... Okay, no problem. >(If I haven't done a good job with this, I hope you'll let me >know; it has been my full intention to do so.) I haven't had the impression that the children are being directed away from the TV. >Please let me know if you'll be willing to do this? Done. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Date swap My dad has been trying to get here for some months, but his damnable schedule keeps getting in the way. He's finally worked it out to come the weekend after this coming one. His dates are like this (exact times as yet unknown): Arrive the afternoon or evening of Thursday 11/9 Depart as late in the day as possible Saturday 11/11 I need to know if we can swap things around so that the children are with me from 3pm Thursday to 6pm Saturday. I'd also like to keep Meredith out of school on Friday, since it's the only day we could do something major (such as going to Tombstone or the State Fair). Thursday is Cam's birthday, so perhaps you could celebrate it on Wednesday or Sunday? Sucks all around, I know, but he squeezed by the Taiwanese--his departure on the 11th is for points Far East. Let me know what we can do. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Date swap >I've specifically told you a number of times that I am no longer willing to >directly negotiate *any* visitation logistics with you. > >If you have something that you'd like me to consider, please have Mr. Miller >get in touch with Sandy. A simple "no" would be sufficient. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Date swap >>What I said was: I'd like you to get >>in touch with our attorneys to work out these kinds of issues. Ann, I am being held accountable for $2,300 per month that I do not make. I am incurring debt at the rate of $1,500 per month because of it. If I do not pay my attorney I will lose him. Whether I _would_ do what you're demanding is academic: I can't. I am going to try one more time to clear this up. My time is pretty flexible, and if I possibly can I will try to accomodate any requests you might make as far as the logistics of visitation. All I ask is that you offer to trade time for like time, and do not pretend that you are asking when you are actually dictating. This does not seem to me to be a great deal to ask. You have never once done this. Not once. The closest you have ever come is the "choice" you gave me last time Wright was in town; in effect, "you may have fewer hours with Meredith, or yet fewer hours than _that._ Which would you like?" There is copious written documentation that bears me out; this is not a matter of perception or opinion. You have never once offered to negotiate the logistics of visitation in any meaningful sense of the phrase, and you have never failed to make sure that the time taken was not made up. If you would negotiate with me in good faith, you would find that I will reciprocate. If you are going to erect this brick wall, it is only reasonable to wait until after we have both talked to Dr. Kigin together and clarified whether there is some misunderstanding. Will you at least do that, please? What you're doing is wrong. Forced to choose between the pretense that I am impossible to deal with when you know that I am not, and punishing my father and your children, you are choosing the latter. I expect this is not lost on Wright, who is in the unfortunate position of being politically useful to you and is therefore without a sound basis upon which to decide whether your assurances of eternal devotion are authentic: my father has never done one thing to deserve your enmity. He did not deserve to be lied to by you, he did not deserve to be stolen from by you, he did not deserve to be betrayed by you, and he does not deserve to have you deny him the little bit of time he can spend with his grandchildren. I have offered to make up the time in full. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Birthday party Mike Miller phoned today while I was out and relayed a call he'd had from Fromm. This is my reply to him, sent by fax: To: Mike Miller FROM: Greg Swann RE: Your call... Advise Ms. Fromm that you are explicitly denied the power to negotiate discretionary visitation issues. Inform her that you will cheerfully ignore all such future requests until further notice. The reason is wholly financial: I cannot afford to pay for your time to deal with trivia. --GSS Two additional notes: 1. I have no problem at all with the arrangement: Cam here tomorrow at noon, you pick him up here Saturday at 11, you return him here after the party. That's perfectly fine with me, if that's what you want to do. 2. No future attempts to negotiate discretionary visitation transmitted by Fromm to Miller will be passed through to me. I hadn't instructed him yet or I would not have heard of this request. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Cam I heard Cam say to you that he wants to come back here tomorrow morning. When I went over to pick him up by the palm tree, he said the same thing to me. I told him that it's fine with me if it's okay with you, and now I'm telling you the same thing. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: Cam >>>I heard Cam say to you that he wants to come back here >>tomorrow morning. >When I went over to pick him up by the >>palm tree, he said the same thing to >me. I told him that it's >>fine with me if it's okay with you, and now I'm >telling you >>the same thing. > >Thank you for letting me know; but, I let Cam know when he asked me that I >had already made some plans for us tomorrow. Oh. Too bad. What alternative did you offer him? --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Skating? Cc: Bcc: KN X-Attachments: On the phone last night, Meri asked me if I would be involved in some way in another skating party that is happening today. I don't know what level of involvement she anticipates, or whether she had discussed this with you before bringing it up with me. IAC, I told her that I'm for what she's for. Alas, she had no details. Please let me know what to expect. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Debriefing... Didn't have time to write this in the diary: Cameron's first bowel movement on Friday (4ish) was huge, two large, massy globules, and the larger of the two had blood on it. No blood on his rectum when I wiped it, suggesting that the bloody one was the first of the two. Cameron saw the blood, but it didn't seem to inhibit his successive performances. Also, Cameron again said to me that he would like to come back to my house tomorrow morning. Again I told him that it was okay with me if you give your permission. I have your 58K message, but I haven't had time to read it. If there's something pressing in it, you might hit me with the Reader's Digest version. I took Friday off for my dad's visit, and I can hear Riccelli's fingertips drumming on his desktop... --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: More debriefing... Meri's retainrer is here. Also her mosquito, which seems to be irretrieveably dead. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: More debriefing... >>>Meri's retainrer is here. > >Thanks for letting me know. Would it be possible for you to drop it off at >the Rental Office here, at your earliest convenience? My earliest convenience ain't all that early. I'm not very busy, but I've been having trouble getting out during the day. The earliest I would be on Baseline would probably be the FedExing hour, 4-6pm. Is that early enough? If not, you can stop by here; I can tape it to the door if I do step out. >I managed to inadvertently erase some of my AOL files recently. It turns out >that I hit Meri's, too. She no longer has the email addresses you gave her. > Would you resend? Check. You didn't say if I should expect Cameron in the morning. --GSS To: AnnSwann@[FILE SERVER OMITTED].com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: More debriefing... >>>the FedExing hour, 4-6pm. Is that early >enough? > >As long as you can get here before the rental office closes, that's fine. As long as it doesn't close before 6, I should be fine. >>>You didn't say if I should expect Cameron in the morning. > >As I reminded Cam, we've got plans. (He's got Brendan coming over to play >with his new Action Figure Castle, something I got for him in part because he >and Brendan kept drooling over it every time we went to Tykesworld. Both >kids were heartbroken that they couldn't play with it on Cam's birthday, and >Colleen and I made firm plans that they could do it today.) Good for them. Sounds like fun. Did you suggest an alternative time for Cameron to come over here? --GSS [The two following messages were transmitted by fax by way of the divorce lawyers.] >Meri told me tonight that, sometimes, when she is at your house, she'd like >to call me - but, she needs your help to dial the phone Meredith knows how to dial the phone. I taught her back in April. >and doesn't want to >disturb you if you are working or otherwise occupied. I don't work on the weekends. I see my children so little that I spend all my time with them. I think my guests are often slightly dismayed because I don't ignore the children to attend to them the way that other people do. I occasionally drop out to do chores or email, but that's when they're "otherwise occupied": engrossed by the boob tube, by the computer or books, or when Meredith is on the phone. Is it possible that Meredith is saying to you what she thinks you want to hear? On my birthday, she said into the phone, "I miss you so much," but she said it so quietly that I could barely hear; is it possible she was trying to prevent you from hearing her? Judy is a friend of mine, but she and Meri are becoming very close friends. Meredith spends hours on the phone with her, and both children snuggle all over her when we're together. Meredith said to Judy, "I wish _you_ were our mom." When my dad was here, both kids insisted they had to sit in the back seat of the car with him, so I ended up being a chauffeur in a superannuated Sunbird. I think all this and the stuff you describe with respect to Wright is less significant than you seem to regard it. Both children seem to need to feel free to express affection that is untainted by either loyalty or supervision issues. I do everything I can to make clear that their love for you does not cost me anything, and I have made a policy from the beginning of not supervising their contact with you, not while they're here and not by pumping them for information about what happens at your house. It's _their_ perception that matters, of course, not mine, but I'm doing everything I can think of. And, in light of that commitment, yes, I will program a speed dial button with your number. I'll do Judy's and my dad's and Dyllan's and Grey's at the same time, so as not to make supervision of it by making it the grand exception. We ran into little Alia a few weeks ago, and I'll plug in her number, too. Thanks for the suggestion; it's a great idea. --GSS Ann, I wanted to revisit some of your remarks today, to make sure you have a clear understanding of my position. You had promised to be here at noon today to pick up Meredith to take her to her birthday party at the skating rink. You had made no mention of Cameron, and I had presumed that Cameron was unwelcome at the party; if this presumption was incorrect, it certainly fit the facts as no other surmise would have. Because of this, I had made a point of emphasizing to Cameron that the plans we had made were very important, as important to him as Meredith's party would be to her. This is exactly the same thing I did when you took Meredith but not Cameron to the Grand Canyon, and I did it for the same reason, so that Cameron wouldn't feel excluded. We were ready and waiting for you at noon. The children were fed, bathed and dressed. We waited outside for you to arrive. After half-an-hour of waiting, we went back into the apartment to discover that you had called at 12:20, saying that you would arrive within 20 minutes. In fact, you arrived 55 minutes later, at 1:15. In that call, you raised the possibility of Cameron and I coming to the party, explicitly for cake and ice cream. I didn't mention this to Cameron, but you did, without taking it up with me first, when you finally showed up. At that time, you insisted that we had to come right away, since the ice cream and cake would be happening first. Cameron is sick and I have been getting progressively more sick all day and we had our own plans, already long delayed, but I went along with you rather than act to deny Cameron the cake and ice cream you'd already promised him. Cameron hated the skating rink the last time he was there, and he hated it again today--except for the video game machines. When he had become bored with them after an hour, he was ready to go, and, of course, there was still no cake and ice cream. He wanted to go, I couldn't talk above the din and trying to was killing my voice, and we _still_ hadn't gotten to our plans, for which we were by this time 2-1/2 hours delayed. So I asked Meredith if it would be okay with her if we went, and she said it would. It did not occur to me that we were depriving her of something she expected at her birthday party, because, clearly, we were not expected. You didn't invite either of us, and you only mentioned that we might (or might not) show up for cake and ice cream at the last moment. Vicky asked me if I had typeset the invitations, which was funny, because I haven't even _seen_ an invitation. Cameron resolved twice to go, and on the second time, I went along with him. You asked me if I want to be a part of the children's everyday lives. That's the wrong question, at least in this circumstance. I didn't see Meredith on her birthday, and I knew I wouldn't. We had our celebration on Friday night, and we made a cake and ate some of it this morning. You weren't inviting Cameron and I to be a part of Meredith's "everyday life"; you were inviting us to be a part of her life with _you,_ a party planned and set up by you in a location chosen by you, a location you know from past history that Cameron doesn't like. You are certainly free to call the time the children spend with you their everyday lives and the time they spend with me something other, but I don't see any benefit in regarding that as anything but an affectation. The bottom line is that you didn't succeed in making Cameron feel less excluded, and you did make it harder for me to find inclusion for him elsewhere. Had you shown up on time, had you not seduced him with promises of cake and ice cream, we would have had 2-1/2 hours more time together, time that would have been a net plus for Cameron, instead of 2-1/2 hours of net loss to Cameron with no benefit whatever to Meredith. Showing up on my doorstep unannounced and telling me that I don't want to be involved in my children's daily lives is unwarranted; Cameron and I had plans that were the soul and substance of my children's daily lives in my home, and these plans were deferred by this episode. You were an hour and fifteen minutes late to pick our daughter up for her birthday party, so I suppose you have to find _some_ way to put me in the wrong. I did nothing wrong. I can count on the time that I have with Cameron, because Cameron's time with me is mandated by law. I can count on you to a degree not to withhold Meredith, but only to a degree. I do not expect any other time with them, and my expectations are rarely contradicted. Cameron's failure to desire to stay in a place he does not enjoy and where he clearly was not welcome and my failure to compel him to remain are not moral failings. I realize now that you had probably set me up, but you realize by now that your setting me up has backfired, so I guess we're even. To make this abundantly clear: Whatever reason you had for not inviting Cameron and I to Meredith's party, this is what you had done. Perhaps it had something to do with your having called me on Meredith's birthday to say, "Thank you for confirming my opinion that you're scum!," then hanging up--I don't know. In any case, inviting us (or partially inviting us) at the last minute was non-optimal, insofar as we had made other plans. Expressing your partial invitation in front of Cameron without first taking it up with me was wrong. This is the same kind of thing I've talked to you about in the past, using the children's known preferences to decide matters that are not theirs to decide. I realize now that I was wrong to go along with this, but you were wrong to create the situation in the first place. In fact, I can view this in the most positive of lights--that you had regretted your spitefulness and wanted to make up for it--and still the fault remains. Whatever your motivation, I regret having been complicit in this mess, and I will be on guard in the future to make sure this sort of thing does not happen again. Finally, will you please endeavor to be here precisely at six when you come to pick the children up on Sunday evenings? As I've told you, Cameron is never more than a blink away from concluding that you have abandoned him, and when you habitually show up ten to twenty minutes late, you only fuel his fears. Greg Swann 12/17/95