c   

 int

  • Do not exploit/use your children to support your legal claim: To that end, 

  • (i) do not ​bring your children to court if their presence isn't legally compelled (i.e., subpoenaed), or otherwise necessary to further a legal --and prudently considered-- claim;     

  • (ii) do not coach your children to misrepresent things; and

  • iii) do not mistake your child's best interest with "besting" the other parent: ​the "best interest" legal burden was crafted to be responsive to children's needs, not to supply pride and insecurity. ​​​​

  • Do not "bad mouth" the other parent to, or in front of your child(ren)This includes implying things as well as expressing (saying) them (e.g., lauding yourself for being the only "real parent" in your child(ren)'s life, is hardly a subtle slight of the other parent (not to mention, "bad mouthing ​the other parent," is something perhaps "real parents" shouldn't do).

  • Remember: willfull blin

  •  

  •  

  • dness doesn't actually impair your ability to see (stop "overlooking" things at your --and your children's-- expense); accordingly:​ 

 

  •   (a) Do not  make excuses (including blaming yourself) for your former partner's misconduct.  

    This includes not taking part in, or getting rid of  the notion that you "provoked" another to commit a wrong. However noble or sacrificed you may think yourself to be, please distinguish between condemning the act and not condemning others (throwing stones when none of us are perfect), and then separately  conferring blame unto yourself

  • the latter isn't a form of  , that isn't accountability- accountability stems from truth

  •  

  • .  Please know, this completely strips the wronged person from

  • responsibility by assuming they're rendered helpless or necessarily confined to reciprocating some form of wrong (often against who "did them wrong"), whether it's to retaliate or be vindictive, dilute or distract them or others, the premise is threefold: selfishly to help make things less unmanageable...  but what gets often overlooked, is the selective confinement Inother words, "for what reason does this stripping away of ability to reason stop short of someone's want to do wrong?

  • hopelessness, pessimism,  island themselves lethargic, color defeatism changes the co predictable cycle of exploitationdefeatendness, where "relief" comes by apathy  (might as well be cynical" 

  • ambivalence instead of energy, mood, devaluing 

  • ugly confines, 

  • bring it up, like other things, loyalty to and certainly cynicism, deliberate misunderstanding, reconstructions, to reject that, be released in JESUS NAME.  

  • exploit ambiguity (passive aggressiveness, surreptitious, lies, doubt,

  • when exposed to chain things exposed circumvent, instead of direct, 

  • rejecting fear. in 

-hesitancy, tempered, innocence pretending to be vulnerable, the econsenqunce of that, while pretending to confined by that, when you're not, and pretending to be confined in that when you're not (lies have to stop. 

  • (ii) there's a difference between that , inevitability is not more than commitment to   exploit as if they can't   the very reactions used to exploit that excuse to "justifiably" wrong you again...  It's a predictable cycle of exploitation and "control" premised on the idea that wrongful conduct is excused by its ascribed "inevitable" status, which 

  • . consider how that wrongfully implies that someone "wronged" is rendered helpless or necessarily confined to reciprocating some form of wrong (often against who "did them wrong"), whether it's to retaliate or be vindictive, dilute as if imposing unto others draws from their grief, or distract them or others, the premise is threefold: selfishly to help make things less unmanageable, .

  • at each instance lies. they shall be overcome in JESUS NAME.

  •   from

  •  

  • them being wronged, which lends itself to the idea that  (before committing a revengeful or inevitable confined to ), and then "control" consequently faultless (after they reacted  in deciding how to react to it (the wrong they were supposedly exposed  to) . . . as if they can't   the very reactions used to exploit that excuse to "justifiably" wrong you again...  It's a predictable cycle of exploitation and "control" premised on the idea that wrongful conduct is excused; but that's a self undermining premise: in that a "wrongful" reaction in of itself presupposes by its own terms, that it's "wrong;" and therefore, unjustified, notwithstanding whatever "wrongfulness" preceded it...).​​​

  •  

  •  

  •  that's used to manipulate t by syphoning some  completely frail  you are NOT obligated to 

  •  

  • "control" you); not to mention that a "wrongful" reaction in of itself presupposes by its own terms, that it's "wrong;" and therefore, unjustified, notwithstanding whatever "wrongfulness" preceded it...).​​​

  • iii) when wrong doing cast in a vulnerable, sympathetic light.  But instead of for forgiveness, it's done to concealing your partner's misconduct by . 

  •  (b) Do not construct some romanticized (alter) identity of your former partner to validate their misconduct/transgressions  (e.g."[your former partner] doesn't put up with…" or "that's just how [your former partner] is"). That's a scripted and borrowed attempt to  mitigate your former partner's transgressions by romanticizing  them  

  • (iv) desire to expose yourself to someone volatile (lust for the bad boy" image);

  • bad boy" image, should have the seductive appeal of a car accident.  In other words, there's no mystery in mistreatment; there's no "aura" in abusiveness; and there's no "excitement" in partnering up, with someone who puts you down.  Indeed, what people mistake for "daringness" to do great things is not the same thing as an impulsive gamble on your life.  you would touch an electric socket with wet hands for the intriguing draw or rush of possibly happen, and you wouldn't romanticize a narrative about you and the socket understanding each other , others get shocked, but not you. you're special that way.  

  •  

  •  

  • in the context of some forged/alter "identity;" but it's not the truth.  The truth is you weren't meant to act like a "loyal victim" that blightedly tucks their partner's misconduct underneath the blanket of some adopted romanticized movie like role.  

  • dilutes the wrongfulness of your partner's misconduct by trying to reduce it to some "role" that often borrowed "movie role." from "bad boy" image, should have the seductive appeal of a car accident.  It's 

  •  

  •  "gangsta" or someone doesn't put up with *, they are roles.  

  • instinct > impulse

  •  

  •  

  •  is that (attempted) reconstruction reveals more than what people think it conceals...  In sum  hort, your partner's misconduct is as inexcusable as your attempt to conceal it by any means, including the desperate attempt to rationalize it as a mere consequence of an adopted "theme" identity.

  •  

  • ​   c) As a significant corollary to this, you have a separate important obligation to your child(ren) to NOT expose them to certain things, risks, dangers, etc.  And those dangers can come by way of the company you keep.  To that end, pretending to overlook your partner's problems for whatever reason (e.g., a want of intimacy with the person acting that way, or tending to your insecurity about "being alone"), doesn't helpfully discharge that parental obligation --no matter how much you reconstruct, or try to justify it yourself and/or others.​

  • On the other hand, do not broadcast your former spouse's errors to simply validate yourself or invalidate them...  Although the same could induce sympathy, or incite staged indignation among "[false] friends," it  truthfully doesn't help you: ​ Invalidating your "ex," does NOT validate you (note: the prior provision was referring to being truthful as to what you're exposing yourself (and your child(ren) to), and if need be, removing yourself from those circumstances; but that isn't a license to demean anyone, including those who have trespassed against you).

​​​
​​​
  • Learning from the past v. living in it:  
 
Conviction > Condemnation
  • Although it seems "poetic," there's no need to dwell in the "past," or indulge in "lost love" (e.g., reminiscing, cinematically playing sad songs repeatedly, reducing yourself to a narrative of "what could have been..."  etc.  There's a noticable difference between trying to overcome sadness, and trying to convince others that you're overcome by sadness). Pick your spirit up, and do great things, including taking that regretful question of "what could have been..." and refocus your life away from it, lest the same question be prophetically rephrased to unfortuntely read:  "all that could have been... if [you] didn't dwell in the past...").
Post relationship posturing: 
  • ​Seeking approval from others/your ex; tailoring yourself to fit his/her preferred mold?  It's a worthless exercise for someone whose virtue is priceless: stop offending your unique Blessings and ability, and develop your gifts (rather than being in the lustful shadow of those who fail to honor you).
  • Trying to make your ex jealous/lying about your circumstance?   Whether it's vindictively to "make them feel your absence," or to induce their want to reconcile with you, there's no need to do either (indeed, there's a need to NOT do both): ​
​   There is a difference...  ​
  • Accountability: to the extent that you made mistakes, you are not alone... we all have.  Treat it as an opportunity to learn (there's so much to be learned from mistakes), be truly remourseful, and grow from it. 
​​​
  • Don't assume, or expect others to be impartial to, or accept your growth

 , gossiping, rumor loving, talking heads :

willful blindness reveals more than what you think it conceals doesn't actually conceal