<p>The father is still supporting the daughter, but just not as lavishly as before. He is not walking away from his financial responsibility to her, if he indeed should have any since she is over 18. What he is saying is if you behave responsibly I will allow you to stay at my house over the summer - would you want a friend you don’t like staying at your house, eating your food and running up a bill? He is also not going to give her a large allowance if she doesn’t perform well in school - he doesn’t want to be an enabler to her bad habits. My daughter understands if she doesn’t keep up her grade in school I would stop paying for it. The daughter is free to do what she wants when she is financially independent, until then, she has no choice but to follow her father’s rules. The father should have done this a long time ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Suppose the Dad said: “Dear Daughter, you are now an adult, must earn your own keep, so I am terminating all financial support.”</p>
<p>According to your theory, Daughter would have no “legitimate reason for resentment”.</p>
<p>^Of course she would have good grounds for resentment if summarily cut off. </p>
<p>Dad sounds more than a little disconnected from reality. After years of a bad status quo he flies in (literally) for a conversation, drops off a written ultimatum and self-congratulates for “being on the right path” with the help of a consultant. Mission Accomplished. </p>
<p>On tactics alone this is stupid.</p>
<p>The daughter likely manifests NPD or a close equivalent. This means that she will always have the upper hand emotionally if not financially in battles with Dad, because fundamentally, he cares and she (probably) doesn’t. In dealing with her, Dad has to operate in ways that pre-empt a lot of the pathologies that can arise. Instead, he gave her ammunition for the wars that will follow, and muddied the waters. </p>
<p>For instance, Dad demands “respect for SO and rest of the family” as precondition for financial support. While it is better to get some respect than none, tying it to money means that they will never have the opportunity to find out whether they are getting real or fake respect. By the time the daughter doesn’t need the money, she will have grounds for permanent resentment of the threat and the manipulation when she did need the money. This is completely different from reaching a situation of actual respect, or making the attempt. That’s one problem, and hardly the worst one that Dad has just spawned.</p>
<p>What do you recommend he do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s possible is to deal with the facts, whatever they are, by starting from the principles and letting the rest flow from there.</p>
<p>If Dad is unhappy with a financial arrangement based on past emotional blackmail, he can put an end to the blackmail by defining it (to her) and making clear that it will be disregarded it in all future decisionmaking. He can also advertise that he wants new financial arrangements ASAP, and commence negotiations. What he actually did, starting from a unilateral ultimatum, is in a number of ways worse than the daughter’s blackmail, even if more benevolent in its intentions.</p>
<p>As another example, credit cards that Dad can afford, and the girl’s relations with rest of the family while away at school, are not as immediately pressing as salvaging the remainder of her semester (and clarifying whether she should continue). Getting the girl to stop spending or to take a job doesn’t necessarily help her studies. Dad focusing on control over the trivia narrows his options for dealing with all this.</p>
<p>Any counselor who puts forth the snap-on-tool solution of an imposed “contract” should be fired. Among other things it increases hugely the Dad’s risk of problems from a destructive daughter. It may be daytime television Doctor Phil pop psychology, but it is also incompetent advice.</p>
<p>“real or fake respect”</p>
<p>So long as it’s respectful behavior, I don’t think I’d be one to quibble on whether it’s “real” or “fake.” The goal is to change her behavior; what she thinks or feels is her business.</p>
<p>And since the money is the father’s, it’s certainly his right to decide unilaterally what to do with it. Negotiating with the daughter over how he uses his money reinforces a notion that the daughter has a claim on it and gets to make decisions about how his money is spent. She doesn’t. Why on earth would he want to do something that sends the message that she does?!</p>
<p>Negotiation doesn’t mean conceding her any rights either financially or procedurally.
There are, however, stages prior to a unilateral ultimatum that could at least leave her with more of an impression (as well as a concrete paper trail) of having been consulted, and would allow for finding out what she wants or is willing to do prior to the eruption of any actual warfare.</p>
<p>Fake means the good behavior disappears and the destructive returns with a vengeance once there’s no money in play. Grandchildren are one example.</p>
<p>You don’t know that this was an ultimatum. Often during negotiations, one side presents their demands, and from there the negotiations begin. In fact, from what has been described, I predict that, following the drama and tantrums and further attempts at emotional blackmail, true negotiations can begin.</p>
<p>This father had to start somewhere. All your suggestings, siserune, are good ones, but they stem from an apparent belief that daughter can be reasonable. From what’s been posted, I think that’s overly optomistic. Daughter needs a sharp reality check. That’s what she’s gotten. But that’s the beginning of the process, not the end.</p>
<p>
I was going to post this exact same idea.
Or it means that new habits are formed and they stay when the carrot holding them in place is gone.</p>
<p>This is obviously the way the man raised her. Unfortunate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with sisterune that if the Dad’s goal is a lasting healthy relationship with his D, a “nuclear” ultimatum may not be the way to go although it might get immediate (or near immediate) changes in behavior. Without actual changes in the way these people relate, view and treat each other, lasting changes aren’t likely.</p>
<p>As sisterune pointed out, the monetary empowered ultimatum in this relationship, as it exists, simply is Dad showing that he can control her by money. Her fear of losing money/support is substituted for Dad’s fear of the Daughter’s rejection/disapproval of him if he isn’t “good” enought to her. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the Daughter can’t be reasonable, Dad will either have to accept that or disengage from his Daughter. The necessity for a lasting healthy relationship is Daughter (and Dad) being reasonable, not just temporarily acting reasonable.</p>
<p>It is the difference between “beating some sense” into someone (contol, threats, ultimatums etc) and working with someone to come to an understanding of what makes sense in a relationship. And, in the circumstances as presented, that is really going to require a lot of work.</p>
<p>And, Daughter has a model in her Mother for NOT sticking around and working on a problem in a parent-child relationship. So, even if Dad doesn’t cave in to Daughter, the Daughter may follow Mon’s example and bail.</p>
<p>IMO, Dad was not trying to control her. He was saying that his extreme financial generosity was a privilege, and one he no longer wished to confer until her attitude towards family and school changed. He continues to provide support for all of her needs, just not all of her wants.</p>
<p>About three days after their discussion, DD called to announce that she had spent all of the money he’d given her for the month ($500) and would starve if more money was not immediately put in her account. As she has a full meal plan, Dad said no. In the past he would have folded. So the saga continues…</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=hmom5]
As she has a full meal plan, Dad said no. In the past he would have folded.
[/quote]
BRAVO!!! Congratulations to Dad for sticking to his guns in this crucial early phase. A child who’s spent her whole life getting rewards for manipulative behavior will push and test him every which way she can think of, until either she gets her way or she learns that he means it and her games won’t work.</p>
<p>I’ve noticed something in my own relationships and others: When you abruptly stop allowing the other party to control you, often you get accused of trying to control the other party. IMHO Dad is absolutely right and reasonable to set his own limits on his generosity based on his daughter’s treatment of him and his SO, as well as conditions of personal responsibility including jobs and grades. </p>
<p>That is not selfishness on his part; it’s a gift to his daughter, and his willingness to do the hard thing will be a blessing to her whether or not she ever acknowledges it.</p>
<p>hmom5, please give him a pat on the back from me.</p>
<p>Wow. $500 spending money for a month? And it’s all gone? My Ss were able to save on the $200 they got from us.</p>
<p>Having been on the front lines with a young addict, now thankfully in recovery, I’d say that there is a fine line between being controlling and setting firm boundaries, but in this case the dad seems to me to be right on the money, so to speak. He has made clear that he will give her a certain amount of money per month. He is not telling her how to spend it. She is free to learn from the consequences of spending it on the wrong priorities. Tell him to hang in there.</p>
<p>$500 spending money a month is hardly non-support! And it would appear that she can choose how to spend that money. It’s not like he cut off all discretionary spending. He just took away the parts that had no controls or limits like the credit cards. </p>
<p>Certainly Dad has to learn new behaviors also. But, all that will take time. In a crisis situation you have to deal with the circumstances, personalities and histories at hand. Crisis can mean do something now to stop the downward spiral because time is about to run out. It means immediate intervention is called for. If someone sitting across the border from you has their finger on the button to launch a live scud missile pointed at your head, initial negotiations will take a much different direction than if they just say, oh by the way, we are building scud missiles, Want to talk? Granted, my response might be more capitulation than I might be comfortable with to buy some time for real negotiation. Obviously, they got my attention and I might be more willing to take my finger off the buttons for the weapons I control long enough to start a meaningful dialogue. I might fake the respect but at least I am forced to listen and by actually listening I might find common ideas I can actually respect. </p>
<p>This WILL take a lot of work and time. But it will take even more work and more time if things continue spiraling downward. If there wasn’t an immediate stop to some of the actions going on, then Dad stood to loose both his daughter and his wife. How is making the choice to possibly loose both rather than possibly alienating just one better for Dad? Sometimes you have to have your finger hover over the missile launch button to even get the other side to the table. </p>
<p>“Daughter has a model in her Mother for NOT sticking around and working on a problem in a parent-child relationship. So, even if Dad doesn’t cave in to Daughter, the Daughter may follow Mon’s example and bail.”</p>
<p>You have no way of knowing this. Daughter may have been living with Mom before she left for Europe. Mom may have tried to work things out, trying to “negotiate” a better realtionship. She may not have run away but simply decided that her daughter could not be reasonable and therefore she choose to disengage from this relationship and nurture the relationship that would bring her the most satisfaction and happiness in old age - the relationship with her current husband. Then again, she may have met her current husband 6 months ago and is now supporting him on a jaunt through Europe because her 35 year old tennis pro trophy makes her feel alive and she is just a selfish monster. There is no way to know the complete motivation here and make judgements. </p>
<p>And sometimes faking it turns into real change. One AA saying is “fake it until you can make it”. It’s worked for lots of people so there is no guarantee that avenue is automatically doomed to long term failure. </p>
<p>The toxic relationship with this girl jeapordized both Mom’s and Dad’s relationships with their current spouses. Mom choose one way, Dad choose to try and make things work with both the important women in his life. It’s not happening. He had to make some hard choices in a very short period of time. He needed to make change happen NOW, not six months or a year from now. He immediately sought help, he is spending some energy on strengthening and repairing his relationship with his spouse, he is taking responsibility for his part in his daughter’s behavior, he is living up to unspoken promises to his daughter by willing covering all her true needs and he hasn’t thrown in the towel or quit loving his daughter. He sounds like a good man who is trying the best he can given human frailties. And, he sounds like he is willing to be in this for the long haul since that is what it will take. Right now, I’m sure his daughter is far more important to him than future grandchildren. </p>
<p>Way to go Dad for finally stepping up to the plate. And for loving both your spouse and your daughter. Tough love is called that for a reason. It is tough on all the parties involved.</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Since we are very likely talking about a young woman with NPD, it is vital that the dad set boundaries. Period. It doesn’t matter at all why she complies with his new boundaries, just that she does. She will never like boundaries. She probably will try to manipulate him all the rest of his life, and yes, do the same with any grandchildren. What is important here is that he focus on setting, and sticking to, reasonable parent-child relationship rules. </p>
<p>There is no easing into this. All rules will be anathema to her. The sooner she figures out the limits by hitting her head on them, the sooner her behavior will improve. First she is going to try to outright fight him, then she will try to be really really sweet to him and do the good-girl routine–all attempts at manipulation–I just hope he is firm and loving, like a broken record. </p>
<p>Every human being on the face of this earth has the right to appropriate boundaries in a relationship. One just has to set them and stick to them. </p>
<p>He needs to frame this in his head as him doing what he needs for him. It is reasonable to do this. He has no control over her behavior and he will not be able to change her inside. All he can control is his behavior and his reaction and his rules. When he detaches from her, he stops enabling her. If I were him, I wouldn’t expect a ‘normal’ relationship between them for a long time, if ever. She may not be capable of relationships based on love and respect. That needn’t stop him from continuing to love her and have reasonable expectations of her behavior toward him and his SO. </p>
<p>And, who knows, maybe there is potential inside her to be a loving and giving person.</p>
<p>$500 a month, above living expenses, is VERY generous. I don’t care what American city you are living in. </p>
<p>Good for Dad in standing up and saying, “Enough is enough.” I hope he’s able to hang on for the long haul. I do agree with dsc6 that maybe a “normal” relationship between the two of them may never be totally possible. But he does need to set boundaries–if not to help her, then to protect himself and those close to him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We know that some threat was involved from the statement that “Dad left with the credit cards”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>During arms-length negotiations between businesses, enemy countries, etc.<br>
It’s not a model to imitate as a starting point for family disputes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A (nuclear, surprise) “negotiable ultimatum given without prior consultation” is not much better than a nuclear surprise absolute unilateral ultimatum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I wrote is that the daughter likely has NPD and the father should have operated to pre-empt the implications of that likelihood. If it were a reasonable counterparty there would be no issue. Of course, everything the father does should also be consistent with the possibility that daughter is or will become reasonable, which is another reason the fly-by, take credit cards, drop off contract routine sounds like a disaster.</p>
<p>There were lots of ‘prior consultations’.</p>