Originally Posted by
trailmix 
You are crazy, but let's focus on the issue at hand.
(kidding)
So your wife has been to rehab before and I guess had some sober time previously, was there any remorse shown at that time any restrictions on access to your Son (you didn't leave her alone with him for longer than a few hours etc) or has she just reentered family life as normal?
Well to recap -- AW is currently in a sober living house located about 30 minutes or so from our residence. She's been there about 3 weeks or so. She doesn't have a vehicle (I have both cars) and it is unclear to me whether she has a valid driver's license (might be suspended, might not be). She said she "got lost" taking a bus today - so I gather she's not driving.
In order to physically be with DS someone (usually its been our older daughter) has taken DS to see "mom." Daughter stays there the entire time (she's very protective of DS and knows mom's issues with alcohol, etc. -- daughter and mom have their own rocky history over mom's drinking and driving).
Nevertheless, AW uses her current sober living and lack of driving as "proof" that there is no danger to DS.
The most she'll say about the past is: I can't change it and I'm sorry, didn't mean to do this, etc.
I don't think I'm trying to "beat her up" with the past; but - from my perspective - past performance IS some indicator of future compliance.
Or as we used to say about the Russians and nuclear de-armament: Trust, but verify.
So, my thought is: it's great that your recovery is continuing and the sober living house is helping you stay on the straight and narrow.
But, it is still too soon in your recovery to give you unfettered and unconditional access to DS. What I've seen done in other cases and what I propose doing here is -- as stable sobriety with DS is demonstrated over a period of time (12 weeks or maybe 8 or 10), the restrictions/conditions "lessen." Her time with DS can increase, etc.
In my profession, I'm often trying to negotiate based on the other side's legitimate concerns. When those concerns are not legitimate, I say so; but sometimes you have to acknowledge when they have legitimate concerns (say, a buyer's credit is shaky and the seller wants protection).
I just don't get the sense that AW thinks any of my concerns about her and DS are legitimate. And that does not bode well for coming to a negotiated settlement concerning DS's contact with AW.
MCE Saint