Saturday, August 20, 2011

Psycho Ex Wife Forum

For members of the Psycho Ex Wife, the forum is experiencing an online attack.  At least two members got a trojan virus from the first attack, which was on Thursday, August 18th.

Today, there is a second wave.  I have a mac and have not experience virus problems.


Saturday, July 23, 2011

About that visitation you demanded

My ex-husband is psycho.  Really.

Since we first separated in August of 2009, he has never ever followed any kind of visitation schedule or custody order. 

I filed for divorce in November of '09 and asked him to create a schedule.  He refused.  He wanted the children on call.  He wanted to get them at a moment's notice.  I put my foot down and told him that he must give me 24 hours notice or he couldn't take the children.

My Psycho Ex-Husband (PEH) demanded the kids with only a couple of hours notice, so I said "No."  He came to the house anyway.  I ignored him.  He OPENED MY FRONT DOOR AND STARTED CALLING THE KIDS.  Understand, I was not living at the former marital home.  This was my separate residence and he had absolutely NO RIGHTS to enter my home.  I called the cops.  He left before they arrived.

Yes, my front door is always locked now.

There was finally an agreed-upon custody order entered in December of '10.  There was a problem with the order caused by my (now former) attorney.  Instead of trying to work around the problem, he went around telling anyone who would listen that I was refusing visitation.  I was not.

PEH repeated his story so often that he started believing it and even filed an affidavit declaring that I was not permitting visitation. 

After the divorce was final he sent me an email that included this little gem:
I feel betrayed by the way you handled the children’s relationship with their father, over the last 18 months.  There is no reason I shouldn’t be able to see the boys on a regular basis, with your blessing and without preconditions. 

You'll note that he refers to himself in the third person.  Odd.  You'll also note that he thinks there should be NO preconditions on his visitation.  While he says he wants to see them "on a regular basis" he has never once created or been willing to hold to a schedule.

In real life, schedules and preconditions are a part of parenting for those who are divorced.

Moving on to the present...

Two weeks ago PEH and I went back to court to rectify the problems in the custody agreement caused by my former attorney.  We were able to come to an agreement right before court and then we went into the courtroom to read the agreement into the record.

The new parenting plan included a very slight increase to visitation for PEH and a few other alterations.  It was to take effect yesterday.  After court, PEH asked to take the children out to lunch, and I agreed.  This was the first time he had seen them since Christmas Day.

Then PEH asked to have the boys for the mid-week visitation as outlined in the new agreement.  I agreed even though it was a different night than the mid-week visitation that he NEVER ONCE used under the old custody agreement.  That happened earlier this week and went pretty well.

Then we come to yesterday. The day the new agreement was supposed to go into effect.  The new terms are that PEH gets the children every other weekend after school or at 3 pm when school is not in session.  So, 3 pm arrives and...


My older daughter suggested that maybe PEH is confused about the time and thinks that pickup is 5 pm like it is for the mid-week visit.  So, we wait until 5 pm and...

:more crickets:

Yes, folks, my PEH is not capable of following a schedule.  He has maintained his perfect record.  Never once in the 23 months since our separation has he been able to create and follow a schedule for visitation with his children.

You may be wondering how the kids feel about it.

They feel relieved.

The minor children are in their mid/late teens.  They're still angry about the first time he moved out of the house 3 years ago.  He looked at the kids, then at the floor, and told them he didn't consider how it would affect them if he moved away.  They're still angry and hurt at the way PEH treated them and me over the years.  They've had enough of being jerked around by their father.  And, yes, they ARE in therapy.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Press Release about The Psycho Ex Wife Blog

Firm Contact: Kevin J. Handy
Divorced Father Challenges Judge’s Order Forcing him to Take Down Anonymous Website and Blog About his Ex-Wife and Divorce on First Amendment Grounds.
Divorced Father Claims that Bucks County, Pennsylvania Judge’s Order Requiring him to Take Down a Website called “” and Prohibiting him from Ever Mentioning his Ex-Wife or Children on any Public Media in the Future is an Unconstitutional and Unenforceable Restraint on Free Speech.
Doylestown, PA (July 11, 2011) – A divorced father is challenging an order entered by a judge in Bucks County, Pennsylvania requiring him to take down a website on which he writes about his ex-wife, his divorce and his custody case. Although the website has the unflattering name domain name “,” all of father’s posts to the website about his ex-wife and his cases are anonymous. According to the father, his ex-wife discovered the website accidentally while researching child support issues involving orthodontic treatment on the Internet and the website appeared high in the search rankings. The ex-wife apparently recognized the content of some of her e-mails, which were posted in a redacted format on the website. Shortly thereafter, the ex-wife asked the court to order the website shut down.
Despite the website’s name, the content of the website is not limited to the divorced father’s posts about his ex-wife and divorce. The website, which is actually owned and controlled by father’s girlfriend, also includes a significant amount of other materials, including discussion forums and resources aimed at helping individuals cope with the difficult issues that arise in divorce and custody cases. According to the divorced father, the website receives over two hundred thousand visitors per month.
Although the website initially started out as a way for father to vent about his divorce and ex-wife, it quickly transformed into a community forum intended to help others going through similarly difficult and emotionally challenging divorces and custody cases. According to the father:

The site is intended to help people in similar situations. I always felt like no one really knew or quite understood the level of chaos that existed in my life, and the website was a way to express it without burdening others with such horror or having to explain and re-explain myself. I felt that it was a way for me to tell the truth of my experiences but to no one in particular.
That is why I started posting to the site in January of 2008. Soon thereafter, I started getting an incredible amount of feedback from people going through similar situations that felt as isolated as I did. That is when the site took on a more meaningful purpose, letting others know that they are not alone in their difficulties. I pray that realization prevents them from feeling trapped like I did. At the time, I felt that I had nowhere to turn. Had I discovered a place like this a long time ago, I may have been compelled to make better choices earlier in my relationship and case. Maybe I would have been more honest with myself and with others about what I was going through and gotten help and guidance sooner for my children and myself.
Father and his girlfriend have appealed the judge’s order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania claiming that the judge’s order violates the rights guaranteed them under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
“The judge’s order is a classic example of an overly broad and unenforceable prior restraint on free speech” according to the father’s attorney, Kevin J. Handy, a partner at the Doylestown law firm of Cooley & Handy. “The order is constitutionally over broad because it clearly prohibits speech that is protected by the First Amendment.”
Although the precise reasoning behind the judge’s order is unclear, the judge presumably issued the order in an attempt to shield the parties’ children from father’s complaints about his ex-wife. There was no evidence presented at the hearing, however, that the children had even seen the website, let alone were harmed by it.
“Even assuming that the court could shield the children from exposure to father’s comments on the website in a constitutionally acceptable manner, which is big assumption, there are many less drastic ways for the court to accomplish that goal without shutting down an entire website. For example, the court could have simply ordered ex-wife to monitor her children’s Internet usage.” according to Mr. Handy. “In the context of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court requires the Government to ‘narrowly tailor” orders restricting speech. The court cannot use an axe where a scalpel will due.”
Father also claims that he never intended for his children to read his posts and that they were directed at other adults going through similar situations.
Mr. Handy points out that the order was issued just in advance the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27, 2011 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, in which the Court, in striking down California’s ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, reaffirmed the principle that the Government may not restrict otherwise constitutionally protected speech for the ostensible purpose of protecting children.
“Time and time again,” Mr. Handy notes, “the Supreme Court has reiterated that courts and the Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children.”
Judges in custody cases often enter orders that purport to restrict what one or both parents may say to each other or around their children. Those provisions, however, are rarely challenged or enforced. In the past, complaints by spouses about their exes were generally limited to conversations with family and friends. The Internet and the ability to post negative comments about ex-spouses indefinitely on social media such as Facebook, Twitter or personal blogs, however, has increased awareness of the issue and the perceived problem.
In 2008, a judge in Vermont in a comparable case ordered a man to take down “any and all Internet postings” about his ex-wife. The judge, however, subsequently reversed himself after the man raised similar First Amendment issues. The case was Garrido v. Kranansky.
“Individuals involved in divorces or custody disputes have no less constitutional rights than other individuals,” claims Mr. Handy. “A judge may no more restrict a parent’s right to free speech that she subjectively finds objectionable than the government can for any other group or individual.”
Cooley & Handy represents individuals in personal injury, class action, divorce, custody, and other litigation in Bucks, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties and throughout Pennsylvania.
© 7/12/11 Cooley & Handy

Monday, July 4, 2011

"You can't divorce me!"

That's what my husband told me one day.  I don't even remember what the disagreement was about.  All I know is that it ended when my husband told me that I couldn't divorce him because it was against my religion.

The religion that we shared.

The religion that he had recently renounced in front of me.  But he didn't tell anyone else.

So this man who had promised in front of God and witnesses to love me and put me before all others had decided that he could go out and do whatever the hell he wanted.  And I would stay home and run the house and care for the children.  But I couldn't divorce him because it was against my religion. 

I eventually proved him wrong.

Monday, June 13, 2011


Just in case The PEW forums get taken down, I've started a blog as a place for forum members to connect.