Brother in law

Hi Kevin,
You wrote,

You were up very early this morning - any reason for that?

Could have been checking my mail after having to go to the bathroom.

I do not think that going to court will be positive either.
Therefore, there must be a way (or ways) to sort this problem out by simply talking to each other.
Have you tried to organise a meeting between you, your wife, and the other people? At this meeting, you should each say what you want for the future, and listen to each other's opinions. At the end of the meeting, there must be a consensus regarding a plan for the future.

On reflection I think, that my position as an in-law like myself can be compared with a worker in a family business, who several years ago has been treated by a N family member in a different department in an unacceptable manner and is in strike since.

In such case, the worker will make sure to make no mistakes, know his rights, have the premium of his legal aid insurance paid in time, spoken with trusted other family members and fellow-workers, while awaiting the family to do something.

Chris

That analogy (of the worker) makes sense, but what does this mean for your situation? - Are you now just going to put up with this whole thing professionally and get on with things? Your post was just a bit vague.

Kevin

Kevin wrote:What this mean for your situation?

Here are no 2 equally strong parties, but a very strong one and one, that can be pushed over the brink at any time, which of course renders the most obligations to the stronger party.
The others keep pretending the other party is b and not them.
Now this seems to be the crux of the story, I will tell them immediately when spoken to on this subject .

See no solution without recourse to some professional, who is to guarantee/execute agreements if any, since the record of the family at keeping b in line must be rated as at least poor.
Meanwhile I just remain on strike.

Hmm, I think I understand now; but I hope that this proves to be the right move to make.

Chucky wrote:Hmm, I think I understand now; but I hope that this proves to be the right move to make.

I think I've made it too complicated.
b is simply someone who wants to dominate his environment, which he does by predictable variable whether or not deliberate behavior: given his way, he is charming, but in the other case there is no doing anything with him.
A normal person will in this latter case more or less give in in the interest of good relations, but not b.
On the contrary: he will then punish those who dare to hamper him with underhanded difficult behaviour.
Same way as a horse trainer breakes a horse.
And in the first mentioned case: as at a birthday of a sister everybody has brought only one bunch of flowers as has provided the respective husband, b brings along three.Obviously this is just dressage. Other family members may think something like it, but will certainly not tell in a festive gathering.

These things can obviously as well only be discussed in 1:1, which might be the reason that the other relatives, which have always swallowed b's behaviour, avoid this type of contacts with me.
Of course my wife has forbidden me to raise this subject not only to her but at all; she does not like being seen as a horse being trained and thinks the others having similar ideas.

Of course this is an annoying thing, especially now that my wife recently started to imitate this b-type behavior.
But discussion/settlement, with the family which failed to set limits to each other, might not be outrun forever as well.

Hi, it had been such a while since you replied that I had to read back over it all to remember your case. So, it seems like things have not changed too much, right? When I encounter 'infiltrators' like your bro-in-law, I take all necessary measures to stay as far away from them(mentally) as possible. This could mean anything from deleting his numbers from your address book, deleting his email address, throwing out anything belonging to him in your house (or just returning it), etc. The mental effect of 'separating' as far as possible from him coud help you out my friend.

Kevin

cvb wrote:but in the other case there is no doing anything with him

meaning: b just walks away from a conversation the moment he does not like it anymore or just does not show up for such conversation to start manipulating my family in law and wife.Which is a major reason why I want to try to reach an agreement in court, where I can call in the help of councel and can expect a decent course of things.

Chucky wrote:Hi, it had been such a while since you replied that I had to read back over it all to remember your case. So, it seems like things have not changed too much, right?

Well, since a week or two b has made himself unreachable for my wife, apparently playing His Insulted Highness, after she refused to receive money for him in our bankaccount. Have myself kept silent here, wondering what will happen next.

When I encounter 'infiltrators' like your bro-in-law, I take all necessary measures to stay as far away from them (mentally) as possible. This could mean anything from deleting his numbers from your address book, deleting his email address, throwing out anything belonging to him in your house (or just returning it), etc. The mental effect of 'separating' as far as possible from him could help you out my friend.

Indeed, have only left b's telephone number in the address book/number recognition of our phones to avoid getting him on the phone, since wanting to come to an agreement with the family, not just with b.

Edit: Added marking.

Ensure that you and your partner have a consenus on all of this too. Tha'ts important I think. You still seem to be handling it allokay though.

Kevin

Hi,

Chucky wrote: Ensure that you and your partner have a consensus on all of this too.

According to Wikipedia "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member.

Between my wife and myself there is no consensus in the above sense, since she just wants it to include her family including b, which in itself is correct, only nobody, including my wife, wants to talk about it to me in 1:1.
That is possibly a.o. due to the impact of the disorder or on my, otherwise absolutely decent and nice, family in law, which includes b and my wife and two more girls, where speaking about the behavior of b and its consequences seemed and seems by tacit understanding to apparently be taboo.
Which did not bother me until a few years ago, when my wife apparently spoke to some business or disagreement with ours b, who apparently saw this as an opportunity for himself.

A few times b just walked away from a conversation on this with me, maybe because he just can not bear to be contradicted.
Over the years I have noticed this behavior a few times more and he might has done systematic and does this intentionally try to take advantage of the so created confusion / panic.

I consider b not as stupid, but as an intelligent guy with a vital disorder, and suspects that all his life he has been consciously manipulating people this way and, thus having a lot of experience on this as well, and for my wife who is so absolutely no match.

Makes me think of a as well Stockholm-type situation.

The current status is that my wife once again visited b and that, at the urging of my wife, we paid reciprocal visits with the eldest sister and her husband.
In which the latter, who knows from childhood my family in law and knows me for over 30 years, at least in my opinion, failed to offer to me to talk about this thing in 1:1 in response to my first telephone call on this house 3 years ago.

Find that this thing has much similarities with what we see around the abuse of children within the Catholic church: 1:1 contacts between group members, who are not well matched, the church intimidating victims and forbidding to talk, denying, later blackening the victims and then under pressure trying to come off with offering apologies.
I am just very closely following what is going on here, see eg this and this.

Edited some typing mistakes.

I saw this episode of the Dr. Phil show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEjyxkorDvQ in which a woman Rebecca Ann herself in an extreme way interfered with the affairs of others.
Dr. Phil calls it 'raise attention'.
Is this kind of PD narcissism or is it something else??
I see similarities with my brother in law behaviour; see opening post of this topic.
Btw: Since the date of opening of this topic nothing has changed.