Brian Moore's motivations - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part XII

In Part XI of this series I left off with having told you about Kristy's personality type. Now I am going to explore Brian's personality type and the effect these may have on each other. Again, it is important to note that while people of particular personality types exhibit a common range of behaviours people are not limited to behaviours based upon personality and it would be in error to base assumptions of future behaviour on personality type. Anyone can control exhibited behaviours if there is a willingness to do so.

Personality types do not cause the conflict but in some cases are a compelling contributor. To fully understand why the Moore v Moore modification of custody and parenting time is in its third year an assessment of the factors of the parents' background, their reactions to them, and how these personalities interact need to be revealed.

Brian currently works as a self-employed carpenter which gives him the flexibility to dedicate his time to his children when they are available to him. Like most in his personality type this is a must as their driving ambition results from a commitment to family. He was also educated as a scientist, and then as a financial analyst.  Brian is analytical by nature and decisions are based upon a logical consideration. 

He is bound by strong feelings, firm principles and personal integrity. Brian's personality type may find it difficult to speak or acquiesce those “little white lies” that are often dispensed without contemplation. This can create conflict and produce strain in a marriage with someone who doesn't hold the same values. The ability to see deeper meanings and have intuitive insights into situations can lead to insistence on having their ideas accepted and applied by those who don't possess the same skills. Although they wish to avoid conflict it can often surround them.

This type of logic based thinking person will resist ideas that conflict with his or her values. These thinkers may lack the ability to put themselves in the position of others and get frustrated by others lack or rational decision making. Difficulty in interpersonal relationships is a manifestation of this. Their hypersensitivity to criticism and perfectionism make it burdensome to function under the direction of others, especially cost conscious employers or those perceived to lack superior logical stature. Thinkers like this most often follow a de facto requirement that they become entrepreneurs.

When Thinkers and Feelers clash, more often than not the feeling types end up hurt and angry, while the analytical thinker is confused about what went wrong. These personality types may still be compatible through mutual respect, but for some pairs it is not achieved or overly stressful to maintain. For Brian it is extremely difficult to give up on something like a marriage not only because of his personality type but that the value that was placed on marriage during his childhood. Brian was raised in an intact family where marriage was valued and preserved. Brian's father worked as a scientist and his mother a nurse which clearly acting in a supporting nature to his analytical and logic based ways.

To the contrary, Kristy was the product of a divorce. The greatest impact of divorce on children comes not at the time of separation but manifests itself more intensely in their adult lives. The younger the child is at the time of separation the greater this impact. For some women the hurt they experience from the lack of family cohesion is never assuaged. The post separation discord and conflict is correlated to the impact in adulthood. The greater the conflict the more pronounced the adverse impact during adulthood. Like so many of her generation, Kristy's father played a peripheral as that of visitor.

Judith Wallerstein who, unfortunately died at age 90 last year, conducted a 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce. She had this to say about some women whose parents had divorced.
They take dominant roles with men, getting pleasure out of seducing, conquering, and then abandoning partner after partner. These young women were motivated by a frank vengeance against men that was startling in its passion.
Such behaviour seems hard to understand in attractive, intelligent young women, including some who were in graduate programs and professional schools.”[fn1]

While Kristy may have initially sought to establish control in her life by marrying and then subsequently abandoning Brian this does not explain the continued litigation. Kristy has come to thrive on the litigation. It gives her a sense of purpose. It has become her opiate and the essence of her being. Contrary to the nervousness and trepidation exhibited by most litigants, upon entering the court room it becomes apparent that Kristy is in an elevated mood and is hooked on this battle. When compared to her most exciting and thrilling events in life, court appearances may rate more than double. This protracted litigation may be seen as the problem but it is not. Her addiction [a term which I use as a placeholder for the more accurate phrase 'lack of willpower'] is not the problem, it is the solution. What I mean by that is whatever the substance, behaviour or delusion that one craves is not the basis of their adversity but is the self-medicated result of the underlying issue. As I explained in the last posting the underlying issue for Kristy is her self-grandiose image as the protector of the children. By continuing to fight in court Kristy sees herself as fulfilling her mandate to “protect” her children while obfuscating the real harm she is causing. This gives her a great sense of purpose and pleasure.

Brian's logic and conciliation based approach does not comport with Kristy's mindset. Brian wants reason and logical structure to dictate their interactions and he becomes frustrated and irritated when that is not achieved. I can imagine scenarios in the marital household involving shouting or name calling, the types of responses that we have when someone just doesn't get it. Think of the person in front of you waiting for the stop sign to turn green or for traffic to be clear a mile in each direction before proceeding. These people don't get it. Some decisions should not be based upon feeling alone. This is not to say that there is no place for feeling or gut instinct but to disregard all logical considerations is in error. For the thinker it can be overwhelming when simple logic is ignored or there is a failure to comprehend.

Kristy sees any eruption of frustration and straight forward logical demands as further validation of her agenda. In her mind Brian is trying to do the very thing she is trying to avoid – being controlled; Having someone do the thinking for her. Kristy had been in control. She abandoned the family and filed for divorce. She determined the course of actions leading to the building of the legal fund war-chest. She determined the location of a new residence. She determined that she would protect the children by reducing the involvement and influence of their father in their lives. She determined that this matter would be litigated to the bitter end. Anything less would be a failure and a loss of control. But as anyone who observes her testimony under cross-examination, it is clear that she needs someone to do the thinking for her. And although she has not particularly raised the issue of “the mental and physical health of all individuals involved” that is factor number six under Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 that a judge must consider when modifying custody.

Even with having her parenting time reduced. Having her standing with the court being diminished – being told she is “not credible”. Having the standard of living of herself, Brian and the children minimized because of litigation costs. She steadfastly proceeds. She is like the Terminator – she will not stop. It will take the intervention of the court. It could be through the assistance of third-party professionals to help mediate a settlement or assuage the acrimony between Brian and Kristy.

But in this case there was no help there to be found. The court, I now fully believe, mistakenly introduced Child Advocates Incorporated into the mix. Their attorney, Cynthia Dean, opposed settling this case through mediation and instead tried to provoke Brian into violating the court's order. Their guardian ad litem, Del Anderson, clearly took an adversarial position and lied to the court in an effort to perpetuate this litigation. To these feeling types the conflict is the product of Brian's insistence on staunch adherence to logical and nearly absolute methodical resolution to this case. Thus, they are roped into and support the agenda of Kristy which is borne of a resentment towards men from a childhood tragedy and is not in the best interest of the Moore children.

Now that it has been over a week and I have received NO RESPONSES to my requests for comment from the financiers of Child Advocates, Inc., I will next start posting about who they are and how they benefit from harming children.

[1] Wallerstein, Judith. "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" (2000)

If you are involved in a child custody battle and would like to gain insight into the thinking of the opposing party, that party's attorney and the judge then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.