Unveiling the Shadow Tactics of Betraying Parents

“Please remit payment for half of Anne’s dental bill.”

— Kate
Sent from my iPhone

Imagine receiving an email from your ex-wife about your child’s supposed “emergency” dental procedure, only to discover you were never listed as a contact. For divorced parents, co-parenting agreements exist to ensure both parties remain equally involved in decisions affecting the child. Yet when one parent sidesteps those provisions and communicates in a way that erodes trust and agency, the other parent is left scrambling.

In this article, we’ll dissect a typical email thread between “Kate” (the mother) and “Barry” (the father) to reveal core manipulation tactics: exclusion, gaslighting, deflection, financial coercion, parental alienation, and victim positioning. By naming these behaviors, any co-parent on the receiving end can identify red flags and begin to reclaim their rightful role.

Case Snapshot & Context

Before diving into specific tactics, it’s important to see the bigger picture. Kate was unfaithful in her marriage to Barry and had an affair with a married man. As a result, Barry divorced Kate. Kate’s behavior has increasingly been manipulative. Their divorce decree stipulates that both parents must consult on any non-emergency medical procedure, and that emergencies require notification within 24 hours.

Divorce Decree Highlights

• Section 3.2 (Healthcare): “Both parents shall consult and obtain agreement before scheduling any non-emergency dental or medical procedure. In true medical emergencies, the parent with physical custody at the time must notify the other parent within 24 hours of the child’s admission or treatment.”
• Section 4.1 (Cost-Sharing): “All medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance are to be shared equally. Each parent shall furnish itemized bills and receipts to the other within ten days of payment.”

The email thread we’ll examine begins in late January, when Kate schedules their daughter Anne’s dental repair without advance notice. From that moment onward, Barry receives a sequence of after-the-fact “estimates,” one-sided justifications, and veiled blame, all of which combine to undermine his legal and emotional standing.

Email 1: Kate → Barry (January 28)

“Please remit payment for half of Anne’s dental bill.”

— Kate
Sent from my iPhone

Narrative & Analysis

Narrative

• On January 28, Kate sends a very brief, one‐line email to Barry:

“Please remit payment for half of Anne’s dental bill.”

• There is no salutation, context, or explanation of which date(s) or procedure she is referring to, nor any itemized breakdown. Barry cannot tell whether this refers to a January 23 “emergency” visit, a January 28 follow-up, or a future appointment.

Psychological Tactics

• Sudden Ultimatum: By demanding immediate payment with no prior notification or context, Kate places Barry on the defensive. He has no chance to ask, “Which visit?” or “What was done?”
• Emotional Pressure: The abrupt tone (“Please remit payment…”) implies that any delay or question on his part equates to neglecting Anne’s needs. This is a classic form of financial coercion, where the request itself weaponizes Anne’s welfare to compel compliance.
• Minimizing Dialogue: The lack of greeting or explanation signals that Kate does not consider Barry a partner in decision-making — he is merely a “wallet” to be charged.

Legal Implications

• Violation of “Prior Consultation” Clause: Their divorce decree (Section 3.2) requires both parents to consult “prior to any non-emergency dental procedure.” Since this email does not refer to consultation, it strongly suggests Kate scheduled Anne’s care unilaterally, before January 28.
• Missing Information for Cost‐Sharing (Section 4.1): The decree also mandates “itemized bills and receipts” within ten days of payment. Kate’s email provides neither an itemized invoice nor any indication of a prior estimate, making it impossible for Barry to verify whether he is being charged the correct amount.
• Emergency Notification (Section 3.2): If this charge relates to an emergency visit on January 23, Kate should have notified Barry “within 24 hours.” By waiting until January 28 to demand payment, she may have further masked the true date and nature of the service.

Email 2: Barry → Kate (February 4)

Kate,

My goal has been — and continues to be — to have a productive dialogue regarding our co-parenting responsibilities as outlined in our divorce decree.

Your response — “Anne’s basic needs will always be met with or without your permission; you are invited to help with her monetary needs” — is a perfect example of unilateral decision-making, exclusion, and non-compliance.

Lack of Communication & Intentional Exclusion
Your approach to decision-making regarding Anne is not co-parenting; instead, you schedule and incur expenses without me. This pattern is both non-compliant and manipulative.

Your response — “If Anne wants to share personal details about her care, I’ll leave that up to her” — is another form of avoidance and refusal to adhere to our co-parenting agreement.

Deflection & False Narrative
By stating, “Anne’s basic needs will always be met with or without your permission,” you turn a binding legal obligation into a voluntary favor, reframing our rights as “invitations” rather than requirements.

Misrepresentation, Gaslighting, & Reversing Responsibility
In this recent situation with Anne’s dental procedure, your initial claim — “It was an emergency as Anne’s molar split” — implies an urgent same-day need. Emergencies require immediate action, not scheduled procedures.

You didn’t notify me before her dental office visits on January 23 or January 28. This is a direct violation of Section 3.2 of our divorce decree. Moreover, your cost estimate of $749.20 was inaccurate and more than the correct out-of-pocket amount.

This is a clear misrepresentation of the situation. You must provide accurate information or consult me beforehand, as required.

Additionally, I was not listed as Anne’s parent or emergency contact on file at Etile Dental, a conscious decision that minimizes and erases my parental role when it suits you.

Your statement, “You will always be invited to help with her monetary needs,” is misleading because you approve expenses you incur without first informing or consulting me.

To be clear:

— You are not granting me an invitation to “help” with Anne’s needs; I have a legal right to be involved in her care, health, and well-being before expenses are incurred.

— You are not acting as a cooperative co-parent — you are making decisions and then using me merely as a financial resource to be called upon when you see fit.

— You do not get to reframe my rightful expectation of communication into a “favor”; this is a direct result of your ongoing refusal to communicate and co-parent in good faith.

— Your last email statement implies that I am somehow responsible for providing information that you failed to provide. This is classic blame-shifting and isn’t appropriate.

— You exclude me from key decisions regarding Anne and then frame each financial obligation as though you are “doing me a favor” after the fact.

Setting the Record Straight

Kate, to summarize:

— I am not an afterthought or a backup financial plan — I am Anne’s father and have a legal right to be involved in her life and decision-making.

— You do not get to redefine co-parenting as a one-sided system where you make decisions and I only receive a financial reimbursement request afterward.

— You are not the sole decision-maker for Anne — our divorce decree explicitly requires shared responsibility and consultation, something you continue to ignore.

— You are aware of my willingness to pay for necessary and approved expenses; that is not in question. My issue is your refusal to communicate and co-parent in good faith.

Below are excerpts from our divorce decree that outline our obligations:

[Barry then attaches the relevant decree excerpts (Sections 3.2 and 4.1)]

Cheers, Barry

Narrative Breakdown & Analysis

1. Opening Salutation

“Kate,”

• Narrative Context: Barry begins with a direct address, signaling that this is a formal, purposeful response, not casual banter.

2. Statement of Intent

“My goal has been — and continues to be — to have a productive dialog regarding our co-parenting responsibilities as outlined in our divorce decree.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Establishes Barry’s cooperative stance: he is not attacking Kate personally but seeking “productive dialogue.”
• Contrasts sharply with Kate’s terse first email; he is framing co-parenting as a two-way street.

Legal Analysis:

• By invoking “co-parenting responsibilities as outlined in our divorce decree,” Barry reminds Kate (and any future mediator/court) that there is a binding legal document governing their interactions.

3. Quotation of Kate’s Deflective Response

“Your response — ‘Anne’s basic needs will always be met with or without your permission; you are invited to help with her monetary needs’ — is a perfect example of unilateral decision-making, exclusion, and non-compliance.”

• Narrative Context: Barry quotes Kate’s earlier statement verbatim (from her February 4 email).

Psychological Analysis:

• By reproducing her exact phrasing, Barry highlights how Kate reframed his legal right (“permission”) as a “favor” (“invited to help”).
• Calling it “a perfect example of unilateral decision-making” shows that Barry perceives Kate’s words as deliberately dismissive, rather than an innocent misstatement.

Legal Analysis:

• In the decree, no clause awards Kate the right to decide on “basic needs” without joint consultation. By noting “unilateral decision-making,” Barry underscores that Kate is acting out of alignment with Section 3.2’s requirement to consult on all non-emergency matters.

4. Section Header: “Lack of Communication & Intentional Exclusion”

“Lack of Communication & Intentional Exclusion”

• Narrative Role: Barry organizes his response into thematic sections, mirroring how a therapist or attorney might categorize violations.

5. Direct Assertion of Exclusion

“Your approach to decision-making regarding Anne is not co-parenting; instead, you schedule and incur expenses without me. This pattern is both non-compliant and manipulative.”

• Narrative Context: Barry calls out Kate’s refusal to include him, using clear, accusatory language.

Psychological Analysis:

• By branding her pattern as “manipulative,” Barry signals he understands these behaviors as tactical rather than accidental.
• The phrase “schedule and incur expenses without me” demonstrates his frustration with being denied even a courtesy notice.

Legal Analysis:

• Again, references Section 3.2 (the requirement to “consult” before scheduling).
• “Non-compliant” implies potential grounds for enforcement — Barry is preparing his case in real time.

6. Quotation of Kate’s Second Deflective Statement

“Your response — ‘If Anne wants to share personal details about her care, I’ll leave that up to her’ — is another form of avoidance and refusal to adhere to our co-parenting agreement.”

• Narrative Context: Barry quotes Kate’s “If Anne wants to share personal details…” line.

Psychological Analysis:

• By highlighting this quote, Barry shows how Kate pushes the burden onto Anne, their minor child, to communicate medical details, rather than speaking directly to him.
• This is a classic example of parental alienation via triangulation: using the child as a messenger to avoid direct accountability.

Legal Analysis:

• The decree does not permit using a minor as the primary conduit for medical information. Section 3.2 calls for “notification” to the other parent; neither “Anne” nor “the child” can legally substitute for that required parent-to-parent communication.

7. “Deflection & False Narrative”

• Narrative Role: Introduces the next cluster of tactics — how Kate flips the script.

Critique of “Invited to Help” Framing

“By stating, ‘Anne’s basic needs will always be met with or without your permission,’ you turn a binding legal obligation into a voluntary favor, reframing our rights as ‘invitations’ rather than requirements.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry deconstructs how Kate’s phrasing weaponizes his paternal right (“permission”) into a token invitation.
• This is deflection because any question of legality (“Why didn’t you consult me?”) can be brushed off as “I’m being generous.”

Legal Analysis:

• No clause in Section 3.2 or 4.1 grants Kate authority to decide what constitutes “basic needs.” By undermining the decree’s clarity, she seeks to replace legal language with personal opinion.

“Misrepresentation, Gaslighting, & Reversing Responsibility”

• Narrative Role: This signals a shift to how Kate distorted facts and then blamed Barry for questioning her.

1. Quotation of Kate’s “Emergency” Claim

“In this recent situation with Anne’s dental procedure, your initial claim — ‘It was an emergency as Anne’s molar split’ — implies an urgent same-day need. Emergencies require immediate action, not scheduled procedures.”

Psychological Analysis:

• By quoting “It was an emergency as Anne’s molar split,” Barry points out how Kate labeled a scheduled dental follow-up as an “emergency.”
• This is textbook gaslighting: making Barry doubt whether he read the dentist’s notes correctly.

Legal Analysis:

• Section 3.2 defines “emergency” as requiring “notification within 24 hours.” If it were truly a same-day crisis, Kate should have emailed or called on January 23. Instead, by bundling costs from both Jan 23 and Jan 28 into a single “bill,” she obscures what happened.

1. Assertion of Failure to Notify

“You didn’t notify me before her dental office visits on January 23 or January 28. This is a direct violation of Section 3.2 of our divorce decree. Moreover, your cost estimate of $749.20 was inaccurate and more than the actual out-of-pocket amount.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry directly calls out Kate’s failure to follow the 24-hour rule. By combining visits and then sending a single inflated estimate, she forces Barry into a reactive posture — he has no option to contest “emergency status” before costs accrue.

Legal Analysis:

The two violations are:

1. No “24-hour notification” on Jan 23.
2. No “prior consultation” on Jan 28.

• Regarding the $749.20 estimate: Section 4.1 requires “itemized bills” within ten days. By overestimating, Kate not only deprives Barry of the correct cost but also violates the decree’s transparency requirement.

Calling Out Misrepresentation

“This is a clear misrepresentation by you of the situation. You must provide accurate information or consult me beforehand, as required.”

Psychological Analysis:

• By labeling it “a clear misrepresentation,” Barry frames Kate’s email not as a misunderstanding but as an intentional distortion. He puts her on notice that he recognizes the ploy.

Legal Analysis:

• Barry is building a record: if Kate refuses to “provide accurate information,” he can take the misrepresentation to a mediator or judge as evidence of bad faith.

Assertion about Emergency Contact Exclusion

“Additionally, I was not listed as Anne’s parent or emergency contact on file at Etile Dental — a conscious decision that minimizes and erases my parental role when it suits you.”

Psychological Analysis:

• This draws attention to another form of exclusion: Kate deliberately left Barry’s name off the official paperwork. By doing so, she evades the decree’s requirement to notify him “within 24 hours.”

Legal Analysis:

• Many states treat failing to designate both legal guardians as emergency contacts on medical forms as a violation of joint custody agreements. Barry can use this as further proof of Kate’s non-compliance.

Quotation from Kate’s “Invitation to Help”

“Your statement, ‘You will always be invited to help with her monetary needs,’ is misleading because you approve expenses you incur without first informing or consulting me.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry demonstrates that Kate’s “invitation” is a façade. By granting himself the right to incur expenses and then offering an “invitation” to split those costs, Kate reframes obedience to the decree as optional generosity.

Legal Analysis:

• Section 4.1 requires “itemized bills and receipts.” By unilaterally incurring expenses and then presenting a take-it-or-leave-it split, Kate has not complied with the decree’s spirit — or letter.

“To be clear:”

• Narrative Role: Barry signals he will now list explicit points to remove any ambiguity.

First Clarification

“You are not granting me an invitation to ‘help’ with Anne’s needs; I have a legal right to be involved in her care, health, and well-being before expenses are incurred.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry is reclaiming his agency. By stating “I have a legal right,” he shifts from emotional language (“help”) to legal certainty (“have a right”).

Legal Analysis:

• Reinforces Section 3.2: Co-parenting requires both parents’ involvement before incurring costs.

Second Clarification

“You are not acting as a cooperative co-parent — you are making decisions and then using me merely as a financial resource to be called upon when you see fit.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry names the tactic: Kate is intentionally sidelining him and only touching base when she needs money.

Legal Analysis:

• This underscores that Kate’s behavior is not benign oversight but an ongoing pattern that contradicts the decree’s cooperative co-parenting model.

Third Clarification

“You do not get to reframe my rightful expectation of communication into a ‘favor’; this is a direct result of your ongoing refusal to communicate and co-parent in good faith.”

Psychological Analysis:

• By accusing Kate of “reframing” his rights, Barry calls out her gaslighting: she is twisting his requests into burdens on her.

Legal Analysis:

• Reaffirmation that communication is not optional; it is mandated.

Fourth Clarification

“Your last email statement implies that I am somehow responsible for providing information that you failed to provide. This is classic blame-shifting and isn’t appropriate.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry identifies blame-shifting; Kate made it seem as though Barry is at fault for missing information, when in fact she never sent it.

Legal Analysis:

• Evidence of bad faith can support a motion for enforcement.

Fifth Clarification

“You exclude me from key decisions regarding Anne and then frame each financial obligation as though you are ‘doing me a favor’ after the fact.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry emphasizes the emotional manipulation: being withheld participation, then “rewarded” with an “invitation.”

Legal Analysis:

• Patterns like this can demonstrate to a court that Kate is deliberately undermining joint decision-making, potentially justifying a parenting coordinator or amended decree.

Section Header: “Setting the Record Straight”

“Setting the Record Straight”

• Narrative Role: Barry is about to catalog fundamental truths to correct Kate’s misrepresentations.

Summary — Point 1

“Kate, to summarize: I am not an afterthought or a backup financial plan — I am Anne’s father and have a legal right to be involved in her life and decision-making.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry reasserts his dignity and parental role. This counters Kate’s efforts to marginalize him.

Legal Analysis:

• Reiterates the joint-custody principle enshrined in Section 3.2.

Summary — Point 2

“You do not get to redefine co-parenting as a one-sided system where you make decisions and I only receive a financial reimbursement request afterward.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry labels the core issue: Kate’s attempt to rewrite the rules.

Legal Analysis:

• By stating “one‐sided system,” Barry underscores that Kate’s behavior violates the decree’s mutuality.

Summary — Point 3

“You are not the sole decision-maker for Anne — our divorce decree explicitly requires shared responsibility and consultation, something you continue to ignore.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry calls attention to Kate’s denial of his legal role. This blunt language puts her on notice that he is aware of — and prepared to insist upon — joint decision-making.

Legal Analysis:

• Clear reference to Section 3.2. This lays the groundwork for future mediation or litigation: Kate has knowingly refused to comply.

Summary — Point 4

“You are aware of my willingness to pay for necessary and approved expenses; that is not in question. My issue is your refusal to communicate and co-parent in good faith.”

Psychological Analysis:

• Barry differentiates “willingness to pay” from “willingness to be informed.” He removes any suggestion that he is “overly demanding” about money — his only concern is the process.

Legal Analysis:

• Signals to Kate (and any mediator) that Barry’s goal is compliance, not confrontation. He is not refusing to pay; he is refusing to be excluded.

Attachment of Decree Excerpts

“Below are excerpts from our divorce decree that outline our obligations:”

• Narrative Context: Barry concludes by attaching verbatim the relevant sections of the decree (Sections 3.2 and 4.1).

Psychological & Legal Significance:

• This final step provides Kate (and any neutral third party) with the precise language she has violated, leaving no room for her to claim ignorance.

Closing

“Cheers, Barry”

• Narrative Context: A cordial sign-off, despite the seriousness of the content, signals that Barry still seeks at least a semblance of cooperative communication.

Summary of the Exchange

Kate’s January 28 Email (“Please remit payment for half of Anne’s dental bill.”)

• Tactics Used: Financial coercion, omission of context, abrupt demand.
• Impact on Barry: No chance to verify cost, consult on procedure, or confirm emergency status.

Barry’s February Email (Full Narrative & Analysis)

Tactics Called Out:

• Exclusion & Non-Compliance (“you schedule and incur expenses without me”)
• Parental Triangulation (“If Anne wants to share personal details… I’ll leave that up to her”)
• Deflection (“Anne’s basic needs will always be met… you are invited to help”)
• Gaslighting/Misrepresentation (“It was an emergency as Anne’s molar split”)
• Blame-Shifting (“You make it seem like I’m the one withholding information”)

Barry’s Efforts to Defend His Rights:

• Repeated references to Sections 3.2 and 4.1 of the divorce decree.
• Clear delineation of his legal entitlement to prior notice and itemized costs.
• Insistence on inclusion in all decisions, not merely receipt of invoices.

Psychological Standpoint:

• By quoting Kate verbatim — rather than paraphrasing — Barry highlights her exact manipulative language.
• His structured, thematic rebuttal demonstrates that he recognizes these tactics as intentional rather than accidental.

Legal Standpoint:

• Barry is documenting a pattern of non-compliance with the decree’s healthcare and cost-sharing provisions.
• By demanding accurate information and attaching decree excerpts, he positions himself to request mediation or judicial enforcement if Kate refuses to rectify her behavior.

Concluding Reflections

For Kate’s Behavior:

• Her January 28 email (and earlier statements like “Anne’s basic needs will always be met…”) show a consistent pattern of sidelining Barry, treating joint decision-making as optional, and reframing legal obligations as “invitations.”
• Psychologically, this amounts to a campaign of exclusion, deflection, and gaslighting; legally, it constitutes repeated breaches of Section 3.2 (consultation/notification) and Section 4.1 (itemized cost sharing).

For Barry’s Responses:

• By quoting Kate’s exact phrasing, Barry unambiguously exposes her manipulative tactics.
• His appeal to the decree’s specific language places Kate on formal notice: “If you continue ignoring these requirements, I will pursue enforcement.”
• Psychologically, Barry maintains a firm boundary — he’s willing to pay for approved care, but refuses to be relegated to an after-the-fact banker.

Moving from Kate’s terse, unilateral demand to Barry’s methodical, legally grounded rebuttal illustrates how a simple dental bill can become a battleground. Yet by understanding each verbatim exchange and its implications, any co-parent in a similar situation can recognize manipulation early, respond with clarity, and document violations for mediation or court enforcement.

Recovering From Infidelity

If you have experienced infidelity-induced trauma caused by the emotional and sexual betrayal of your spouse, there is hope! If you are a child affected by parental infidelity, there is hope! If you are a spouse who has betrayed trust, love, and fidelity, there is hope! We recommend that you seek support through professional counseling and therapy, as well as through groups dedicated to supporting you through this traumatic journey. You are not alone, and recovery and healing are possible!

Share Your Story

The CHADIE Foundation shares personal stories of spouses and children impacted by infidelity and affairs. If you have a story you would like to share and have published, please use the contact information below to share your story with The CHADIE Foundation. Our mission is to help educate everyone about the damage infidelity, affairs, and adultery cause families and how to minimize the impact.

About CHADIE Foundation

The CHADIE Foundation (Children are Harmed by Adultery, Divorce, Infidelity, and related Emotional trauma) helps spouses, partners, and children who adultery, affairs, and infidelity have negatively impacted. To learn more about CHADIE and how you can help, please email us at support@chadie.org or visit us at CHADIE.org.