AITA for telling my son info I obtained about his ex wife that he used in divorce court?

In the heart of a bitter divorce, a father fights not just for custody, but for the very essence of his children’s stability. Stationed miles away in the military, he battles against a tide of accusations and control, determined to protect his bond with his kids despite the storm of legal and emotional warfare.

As the mother distances the children from those who once were their family anchors, the pain of alienation cuts deep. Amidst court battles and fractured relationships, the struggle to keep love and family intact becomes a poignant testament to resilience in the face of heartbreak.

AITA for telling my son info I obtained about his ex wife that he used in divorce court?

As renowned family law expert and author Forrest S. Mosten explains, “In high-conflict divorce cases, the primary focus must shift from blaming and punishing the other party to establishing functional agreements that prioritize the needs of the children.” This principle is acutely relevant here, as the actions of all parties appear geared toward punitive measures rather than functional co-parenting or even functional extended family relationships.

The OP’s motivation stemmed from loyalty to their son and a desire to expose what they perceived as parental alienation by the ex-wife against her own parents. However, in ongoing litigation where boundaries are strictly defined (such as a no-contact order), any communication relayed to the son that influences legal strategy is viewed by the opposing party as direct interference. The ex-wife leveraged the no-contact order and the perception of disrespect to remove the OP from the children’s lives, effectively punishing the OP for their involvement in the custody dispute, even if the information shared was factual regarding alienation.

The OP’s action was an overstep in the context of maintaining access. While advocating for the child is important, involving oneself directly by sharing sensitive third-party information that feeds into litigation, especially when already constrained by an order, often results in retaliation. A constructive recommendation would be for the OP to support their son strictly through emotional support and defer all information gathering and dissemination regarding the custody case entirely to the son and his legal counsel, focusing only on personal, appropriate contact with the children when permitted.

THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.

The original poster (OP) is caught in the intense conflict of their son’s divorce, primarily by attempting to support their son by relaying information about the ex-wife’s behavior, specifically parental alienation. This action, while perhaps well-intentioned to aid the son, has resulted in the OP being completely cut off from contact with the grandchildren, which is the direct consequence of crossing a boundary set by the ex-wife, regardless of the context of the information shared.

Given the high-conflict nature of the custody battle and the existing no-contact order, was the OP’s decision to share information received from the ex-wife’s parents with their son (and subsequently, his lawyer) a necessary disclosure of parental alienation, or an overstep that violated the need to remain neutral to maintain access to the children? Where does the duty to support one’s child end when it directly jeopardizes one’s relationship with the grandchildren?