Truth for nieces' sake trumps family upheaval
Q. My brother and sister-in-law are going through an ugly divorce with her alleging emotional abuse, him trying to get shared custody of their kids (under 10), his lawyer deposing her family members, her refusing to let him see the kids unless supervised. I've been trying to stay out of it, at my father's request and my brother's request/demand.
Recently my sister-in-law emailed me and told me her side of the story, the polar opposite of my brother's version of everything. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I lean toward hers because I know my brother and his terrible temper. She wants me to talk to her lawyer; I could probably help corroborate his anger-management issues.
I want what's best for my nieces, and I don't mind risking my relationship with my brother and mother (parents are divorced); they are both controlling, manipulative, angry people and neither one lives in my town. But I hate the thought of risking my relationship with my dad. We're very close and live in a small town, and I feel like he would be stuck between me and brother.
He knows my brother's temper, but I don't think it's as intimidating to a grown man and he just doesn't want to believe his son could do the things my sister-in-law is saying. (He is hearing everything through my brother.)
Should I talk to the lawyer and, if so, let my father know I'm going to do it beforehand?
Choosing Sides
A. I wish there were a loophole here, some way to justify your remaining neutral.
But these kids need you more than your father does, and more than you need your father's approval. Children's peril trumps adults' sensitivities, period.
This conversation, too, is neither a deposition nor an appointment with the judge; it does not have to go any further than you're ready for it to go. In fact, you can allocate a fair amount of the time toward figuring out whether you have to be all in, whether a background role will suffice, or whether you can (or need to) help at all. This meeting can be for you as much as it is for your sister-in-law's case.
It also needs to be about your telling the truth as you know it, not corroborating anything. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
With any degree of involvement you choose, remember: As long as what you report is truthful; complete in the sense that you don't add or hold back facts toward your preferred outcome; and motivated by truth alone, versus delight at the opportunity to stick it to your "controlling, manipulative, angry" brother and mother, by association then you will not be the one responsible for costing him in this divorce. That falls to him for behaving in a way that forced your hand.
It's safe to assume your brother won't be impressed with this reasoning, but your father might surprise you. When you tell your dad not upfront, only if you go on the record he might be able to draw on his difficult history with your mom for some sympathy. Whatever it costs you, though, think of it as less than what silence would cost these kids.
• Email Carolyn at tellmewashpost.com, follow her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/carolyn.hax or chat with her online at noon Eastern time each Friday at www.washingtonpost.com.
© 2014 The Washington Post