You Can't Change Your Relationship On Your Own

who believes he is incapable of change? We have done you seminar a few years ago. He said all of it made sense at the time. Still says it makes sense. But he is just incapable and useless.

I am the non-ADHD partner who has done everything I can to make things better. He does acknowledge that he has ADHD but, beyond starting medication 3.5 weeks ago, will not do anything about managing any of his symptoms or behaviours. I think he has other issues besides ADHD relating to denial/avoidance/lack of empathy, as well as communication issues along the lines of Aspergers or non-verbal learning disability (and he DOES agree with that), which add a LOT of complications. His main way of dealing with anything is NOT to - just to avoid (and he admits that too).

I don't feel love for him any more - haven't for several years - but I was hoping that maybe if we start figuring out these things I could fall back in love with the guy I first met (yup, back in the hyperfocus period). But I am so angry and hurt and resentful that I don't even think that is possible any more. He is now taking meds, albeit a bit inconsistently. But I think he is waiting for the pill to fix things - is still doing everything possible to avoid actually dealing with any of this, or taking any responsibility for making changes himself. (To him, the fact he is taking the pill or purchasing your books means he tried... but he's barely read the books, and he completely refuses to put anything in them into practice - to ever TRY at anything).

I think I am at the end... after everything we have been through, I can't imagine what would make anything change now. Our relationship is already pretty much over, even though we still live under the same roof. (We haven't even talked for over a week - which is heaven to him because now I am avoiding too). It is hard to imagine that I would get my feelings back even if he did somehow decide to work at this. It's very hard to fathom - he came straight from another marriage to be with me, and I know he will be terribly unhappy living alone. But he would rather continue to avoid dealing with any of this (and accuse me of complaining if I dare try to raise anything) and just let our separation be the outcome. Even though we will both be so unhappy. (As we are now. My lose-lose proposition).

I feel pretty hopeless reading your books too, because all of the advice seems to be given with the assumption that the ADHD-partner ALSO is working on things. But if he isn't... then I cannot be my best self with him in this house.

If you have any suggestions, I welcome them. Because I think we are at the end, and I am probably only clutching at imaginary straws. Thank you.

Reading through what Melissa said....it was pretty easy for me to identify myself in this mix of issues..and even though I am the ADHD partner in one aspect....I am, for all intensive purposes, the Non-ADHD partner in the relationship with my wife and without a proper professional diagnosis....I am working off the assumption ( based on all things I know and have to work with )...that my wife falls into the category of the symptoms at least...which really are similar or the same in many (most ways )....despite which category of a true diagnosis in a definitive way? 

There are so many different combinations of co-morbid features like OCD and anxiety, anger and impulsiveness, oppositional and defiant resistance, mood swings ( which may look like Bi-polar but????? )and then any other kinds of behavioral issues attached to those things that keep being brought up here like Narcissism or Depression ( and the like ) that I have really started looking past those things in my wife ( since there is nothing I can do about that personally?  Plus... I have really found that much of that is only due to circumstances and when the circumstances change...so do those conditions so I am pretty quickly seeing how those extra bonus add on's (unless truly diagnosed by a trained professional ) are just more symptoms themselves and are less of the cause?

But the biggest problem of all as I personally have experienced in myself..;;and am now experiencing this in relationship to another person is denial.  First and foremost....and  that does simplify this down to the steps in the order of importance?  In that case...what Melissa said about lobbying....is the logic first step to take?  First an only step that will actually work just my confirmation in trying other things myself out of desperation and without anything left to try?  Once you try everything first ( not because you don't believe it yourself ) but because you are desperate to find something?  Anything at all and when push comes to shove.....what ever works right?  And what works...is lobbying but that has one particular road block standing in the way of denial and that is in communication?

Rather than work alone, make a plan for how to gently and non-aggressively approach your partner to request assistance.

This is a reasonable thing to ask for and it makes sense to do?  My wife and I did the couples course together ( and not assuming here ).....I think there is another element in the ( might be or maybe department ) for some couples and not others and this is where I can offer my own positive results into.....when dealing with the problem of simply being understood ( not emotionally but actually the "language" and "approach being used"....so you are actually being understood as you speak...and as the other person hears you?  I haven't really ever had a lot of trouble being understood when I speak...until I am confronted with something ( with some people but not others ) that has absolutely mystified me and I have always wanted an answer for this which I have now started to discover why with some "real" quantifiable answers I can use.....in order to lobby effectively in the first place?  That is my focus as least with my wife right now since.....you can't use the tools or outlines in the seminar class....if you can't even get past the instructions in order to do the exercises without some kind of conflict or disagreement....with that just to start?

And there in lies 90% of the problems my wife and I get into?  Not so much not agreeing about what we want or anything one "thing" or problem we can't agree on.....we can't even discuss or converse about anything....without misinterpretation and defensiveness coming into play?  That is the problem and that is A problem...when it comes to Lobbying?  As I have found out the hard way myself?

Using myself as 1/2 the source of our conflicts when it comes to communication and the ability to understand things.....I found a perfect explanation to something that I experienced in school growing up that highlights this problem perfectly as a means to start on the right foot?  Step A...as I'm seeing it...before you go to step B?

The Problem:  New Math    If I had to point to the worst thing that ever happened to me in my experience in school in the 60's ( in my personal opinion ) New Math was an absolute disaster and the brain fart ( not brain child ) of the people who came up with this travesty in our education system thinking that this would work or even thinking this was a good idea in the first place?

Taking the "classical education" of a 1000's of years and suddenly throwing it the toilet for a "NEW IDEA"   without thinking this through....was like walking in front a moving semi truck and getting smashed to pieces...because you didn't look both ways before stepping off the side walk...and wondering what just happened?  That was and is...about the dumbest completely illogical thing to have to try and figure out ahead of time....that this was a BAD IDEA...and wondering why?

And the reason why is simple.  Trying to fit the idea to the concept...instead of fitting the concept to the idea?  When ever you do that....you are taking any logical progression and context...and throwing it out the window in service of something else which is not being "disclosed" or told to you in order for you to simply understand...."why am I doing this?"  And "what is the goal" or "purpose" and "how can it be used?"

Why......do you need to learn this?

What.....is the purpose or goal? And.....What is the linear progression or steps you must take to reach that goal?

How.......can it be applied?  How will it be integrated into another discipline and how do they work together in unison either alone or separately?

When........ do you use it?

Where........... can you put this to use...and in which way will it be of use or service to you as a tool or devise in order to make use of it?

All these things need to be known ...First.....before you can effectively learn any discipline in terms of just isolating it separately ...alone all by itself as solitary point or object....floating haplessly in outer space....and then finally telling you after you learn it and have perfected this skill......"Oh....and now...here's how you will apply it and what it's used for?"  That would be like telling someone a joke..and forgetting to include the punch line which makes as much sense as that as far as I am concerned...or walking in front of a Mac Truck without ....looking first before stepping off the curb assuming nothing is coming?  That's how bad an idea.....New Math was for me at least but some seemed to grasp this...without all those things present first which is why I am bringing this up?

"In the 'new' mathematics, then, first there must be freedom of thought; second, we do not want to teach just words; and third, subjects should not be introduced without explaining the purpose or reason, or without giving any way in which the material could be really used to discover something interesting. I don't think it is worth while teaching such material."

1)  Freedom of thought

2) Do not teach just words

3) Subjects should not be introduced without explaining the purpose or reason

or

4) Without giving any way in which the material could be really used to discover something interesting. ( and or useful to you in some way?  I might add? )

Here...just learn this.

Why?

Because?  Because why??    That was the entire premise of the New Math system of learning?  You'll find out later...but for now....."just learn this?"  Because?????????????????????????????????"

And here are the things I use to remember hearing along with my own thoughts at the time throughout the entire "New Math" nightmare. 

You'll need to know this first before you can learn the next step. ( school teachers and administrators )

Next step of what?????????????????  Who's on first???? I don't understand???????????  What's the goal?  What's the purpose?  How will it be used and how can I ,make use of it?  What value does it serve?  To what end?  Give me an example of how I can use this and what will be the end result once I do??????????  "What, where, when, and how????"

"You don't need to know that for now, you'll learn that later...to learn the material and learn the lessons...you only need to focus on the material and just memorize it for later to use in step 7 or 8 once you learn this first.  ( teachers or school administrators )

"Well begging your pardon.....BUT YES I DO!!!!   OR else I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT???????  DO YOU NOT HEAR THE WORDS COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?????????" ( errrrrrrrr!!!! )

"Parents and teachers who opposed the New Math in the U.S. complained that the new curriculum was too far outside of students' ordinary experience and was not worth taking time away from more traditional topics, such as arithmetic. The material also put new demands on teachers, many of whom were required to teach material they did not fully understand. Parents were concerned that they did not understand what their children were learning and could not help them with their studies. In an effort to learn the material, many parents attended their children's classes. In the end, it was concluded that the experiment was not working, and New Math fell out of favor before the end of the decade, though it continued to be taught for years thereafter in some school districts. New Math found some later success in the form of enrichment programs for gifted students from the 1980s onward in Project

In the Algebra preface of his book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell, Professor George F. Simmons wrote that the New Math produced students who had "heard of the commutative law, but did not know the multiplication table."

"In 1965, physicist Richard Feynman wrote in the essay "New Textbooks for the 'New Mathematics'":[4]

If we would like to, we can and do say, 'The answer is a whole number less than 9 and bigger than 6,' but we do not have to say, 'The answer is a member of the set which is the intersection of the set of those numbers which are larger than 6 and the set of numbers which are smaller than 9' ... In the 'new' mathematics, then, first there must be freedom of thought; second, we do not want to teach just words; and third, subjects should not be introduced without explaining the purpose or reason, or without giving any way in which the material could be really used to discover something interesting. I don't think it is worth while teaching such material."

"In 1973, Morris Kline published his critical book Why Johnny Can't Add: the Failure of the New Math. It explains the desire to be relevant with mathematics representing something more modern than traditional topics."

He says certain advocates of the new topics "ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations, if one does not know the older ones"

"Furthermore, noting the trend to abstraction in New Math, Kline says "abstraction is not the first stage, but the last stage, in a mathematical development"

Everything said here was absolutely true for me right to the letter?  I couldn't learn Math....if I could not understand it first?  And in order to understand it...I had to have some basic knowledge or understanding and answers to those questions first?  And since no one told me that first....I could not understand it?  Period?

Of course....now I do...in fact...I went from  a D  ( in my last Math course in High School ).....to straight A's in college...only because someone finally told me how this all works together first....before they just went......"here, learn this?"  Which is exactly the point I am making and what I am finding is exactly the same things happening with my wife many times and I am beginning to recognize the same thing with her as well?  Certain basic ideas or concepts have no been learned and before she can learn anything new...the "Old ways" or "good foundation of knowledge" needs to be learned first before these abstract concepts can even be understood?

Classic Learning

Grammar teaches the mechanics of language to the student. This is the step where the student "comes to terms", i.e. defining the objects and information perceived by the five senses. Hence, the Law of Identity: a tree is a tree, and not a cat.

Logic (also dialectic) is the "mechanics" of thought and of analysis; the process of identifying fallacious arguments and statements, and so systematically removing contradictions, thereby producing factual knowledge that can be trusted.

Rhetoric is the application of language in order to instruct and to persuade the listener and the reader. It is the knowledge (grammar) now understood (logic) being transmitted outwards, as wisdom (rhetoric).

In The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric (2002), Sister Miriam Joseph thus described the Trivium:

Grammar is the "art of inventing symbols" and "combining them to express thought"  ( that's the problem right there to pin point what I hear with my wife when she speaks? )

logic is the "art of thinking; and rhetoric".... is the art of communicating "thought from one mind to another"......... the "adaptation of language to circumstance."

      Grammar is concerned with............................ "the thing"....... "as-it-is-symbolized."

     Logic is concerned with................................... "the thing"............ "as-it-is-known."

     Rhetoric is concerned with.............................. " the thing"......."as-it-is-communicated."

Diction:   Aristotle, in The Poetics (20) states that "Diction comprises eight elements: Phoneme, Syllable, Conjunction, Connective, Noun, Verb, Inflection, and Utterance. However, Epps states that in this passage.......

"the text is so confused and some of the words have such a variety of meanings that .....one....... cannot always be certain what the Greek says, much less what Aristotle means."

And here in...lies the problem I have with my wife as well?   As I have recently noted....by speaking in this manner where the word ....."one"....is used. to denote "people"....from a "place" of a "thing".  My wife has a much easier time hearing and understanding me....even though I sound like I am speaking in some "Old English Period Peice"...or play or Novel  that has the same kind of sounds to it.....which kind of  makes me sound silly and ridiculous when I speak this way ( to myself that is ) ...but yet, have found that it works to eliminate ambiguity or to simply understand what my wife's says sometimes?

Rhetoric was later taught in universities during the Middle Ages as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (along with logic and grammar).[21] During the medieval period, political rhetoric declined as republican oratory died out and the emperors of Rome garnered increasing authority. With the rise of European monarchs in following centuries, rhetoric shifted into the courtly and religious applications. Augustine exerted strong influence on Christian rhetoric in the Middle Ages, advocating the use of rhetoric to lead audiences to truth and understanding, especially in the church. The study of liberal arts, he believed, contributed to rhetorical study: "In the case of a keen and ardent nature, fine words will come more readily through reading and hearing the eloquent than by pursuing the rules of rhetoric."[22] Poetry and letter writing, for instance, became a central component of rhetorical study during the Middle Ages.[23] After the fall of the Republic in Rome, poetry became a tool for rhetorical training since there were fewer opportunities for political speech.[24] Letter writing was the primary form through which business was conducted both in state and church, so it became an important aspect of rhetorical education.[25]

Rhetorical education became more restrained as style and substance separated in 16th-century France with Peter Ramus, and attention turned to the scientific method. That is, influential scholars like Ramus argued that the processes of invention and arrangement should be elevated to the domain of philosophy, while rhetorical instruction should be chiefly concerned with the use of figures and other forms of the ornamentation of language. Scholars such as Francis Bacon developed the study of "scientific rhetoric."[26] This concentration rejected the elaborate style characteristic of the classical oration. This plain language carried over to John Locke's teaching, which emphasized concrete knowledge and steered away from ornamentation in speech, further alienating rhetorical instruction, which was identified wholly with this ornamentation, from the pursuit of knowledge.

In the 18th century, rhetoric assumed a more social role, initiating the creation of new education systems. "Elocution schools" arose (predominantly in England) in which females analyzed classic literature, most notably the works of William Shakespeare, and discussed pronunciation tactics.[27]

The study of rhetoric underwent a revival with the rise of democratic institutions during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Scotland's author and theorist Hugh Blair served as a key leader of this movement during the late 18th century. In his most famous work "Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres", he advocates rhetorical study for common citizens as a resource for social success. Many American colleges and secondary schools used Blair's text throughout the 19th century to train students of rhetoric.[28]

Political rhetoric also underwent renewal in the wake of the US and French revolutions. The rhetorical studies of ancient Greece and Rome were resurrected in the studies of the era as speakers and teachers looked to Cicero and others to inspire defense of the new republic. Leading rhetorical theorists included John Quincy Adams of Harvard who advocated the democratic advancement of rhetorical art. Harvard's founding of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory sparked the growth of rhetorical study in colleges across the United States.[25] Harvard's rhetoric program drew inspiration from literary sources to guide organization and style.

Debate clubs and lyceums also developed as forums in which common citizens could hear speakers and sharpen debate skills. The American lyceum in particular was seen as both an educational and social institution, featuring group discussions and guest lecturers.[29] These programs cultivated democratic values and promoted active participation in political analysis.

Throughout the 20th century, rhetoric developed as a concentrated field of study with the establishment of rhetorical courses in high schools and universities. Courses such as public speaking and speech analysis apply fundamental Greek theories (such as the modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos) as well as trace rhetorical development throughout the course of history. Rhetoric has earned a more esteemed reputation as a field of study with the emergence of Communication Studies departments in university programs and in conjunction with the linguistic turn. Rhetorical study has broadened in scope, and is especially utilized by the fields of marketing, politics, and literature.

Rhetoric, as an area of study, is concerned with how humans use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort of some sort.[30] Harvard University, the first university in the United States, based on the European model, taught a basic curriculum, including rhetoric. Rhetoric, in this sense, how to properly give speeches, played an important role in their training. Rhetoric was soon taught in departments of English as well.

All of this is speaking in terms of rhetoric as an art form of a discipline in speaking?  What I have come to learn is that rhetoric in terms of how my wife hears and understands things...is more a "phenomenon" or the effect of something that has to do with how she hears things and the way she hears them and processes things as she hears them come through to her?

And the reason I am so focused on the word...."rhetoric"...is because my wife speaks rhetorically...so much and so often....either interspersing it alternatively with logic when she talks or tries to explain things....or....goes off on rhetorical tangents to the point the the point she was trying to make....gets lost in translation?  I finally told her just a couple of days ago...if she could try and not speak rhetorically so oftenl....or bounce back and forth from logic and rhetoric....because I get so confused with she does this....as well it sounds like a person having a conversation with themselves or like when you talk to yourself  for example

"She was walking up to the house and she had this thing in her hand...... I wonder what that thing was?.......and then she came around the corner of the house and....that reminds me...the house needs painting?.....then she saw the dog chasing the cat......that cat, what a handful, cats are so funny sometimes........and that's when the dog jumped on the mailman......our mail man is such a great guy and he's always so friendly......and his mail bag fell on the driveway and the letters went everywhere.....I wonder why they use those mail bags instead of a cart of something?

Instead of saying...."She was walking up to the house and came around the corner...and saw the dog chasing the cat and the mailman was startled and his mail bag fell and spilled letter everywhere?"

So when I finally did point this out to her and she heard me this time.....she actually agreed that she does do this....which I told her is why I have such a hard time following her?  If you took the rhetorical....completely out of the conversation....I can follow along just fine..and understand everything quite simply even the most complicated of topic that go way into depth?  As long as those "interjections or a personal nature" are left out entirely...then this hurky jerky,  disjointed way of speaking suddenly become clear, unambiguous and easily understandable and stays.,,,"on topic"...and the superfluous flotsam and jetsam and judgments and things of a personal nature like.....the mailman if friendly and a great guy.....cats are funny and a handful....what was the thing in her hand.......the house needs painting........and why mailmen uses bags instead of carts......is gone a with that.....no confusion?

The problem here is....the rhetoric might be useful or add to the topic of the mailman being started by the dog and cat and spilling letters on the driveway...if somehow all those things that were said...were somehow connected to this particular event?  In this example however.....nothing was connected with anything other than my wife just expressing how she personally felt, pondered, wondered, or reminded of....during the entire time she is simply telling an easy to understand event....with none of that there to cloud and confuse and make it difficult to know where she is going or to follow this?

What I am attempting to do...is learn a new language and approaching this way...by analyzing this "language style"...in order to understand it better?  It is literally "Greek to Me"...as they say but especially when trying to lobby and get her to understand me.....so if when in Rome...do as the Romans do?  I'm literally attempting to understand this language barrier...to eliminate that first....before I can lobby effectively?

But I also know for me that in school like I was showing for myself only...that some kids understood the NEW Math....and I just simply didn't.  But it was because of exactly what I said and the approach was just all wrong for me which meant....I HAD TO HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH....or I simply could never understand it no matter how hard I tried?  The New Math approach for me....was like someone talking Greek......and that much is a fact and all the supporting evidence I included that was mandatory for me to understand it...that was completely missing which left me totally clueless?

I know this thread is not directly related to communication..;...but you can't Lobby...if the other person cannot understand you...first and foremost....which is what I have discovered?

J

I'm struggling, big time. 12 out of 12 days in 2017 that I have cried.

one thing I am really fed up with and that I am pushing back really hard on is blame. As Melissa kindly reminded me, I am not to blame. I react and I own up to that. But I am not to blame for his behaviour. The words I hate the most are: because you, but you, if only you. I am now pushing back in those. No, it's not because of me that you are not getting up, forgetting to do things, not going to bed etc...I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THOSE WORDS AGAIN. 

I'm the ADHD partner, and I confess it took me years to discover that first, I had ADHD, and that second, it had a major impact on my relationship. During those years, I did a lot of emotional damage to my partner. It doesn't help that I also tend to be controlling, selfish, and spoiled (thank my parents for that). So needless to say, I have a ton of bad habits and hurtful behaviors, and then lump the forgetfulness, bad prioritizing, easy distractibility and low frustration tolerance on top of that. It's not a good combination.

I started seeing a counselor a year and a half ago, which gave me some tools to address some of the worst things, including not listening to my partner, interrupting her, getting mad when she's trying to tell me something negative, getting defensive, and impulsively opening my mouth and letting stuff out that really shouldn't be said. I also started medication, beginning with Adderall and then moving to a higher dosage of Vyvanse.

I wish I could say the counseling and the medication fixed everything, or even that it started to change things, but in all honesty, it hasn't. And it's not for lack of me trying to implement things--every day I'm trying to listen better and understand what to say and do to make my relationship with my partner happier. But every day she tells me how I'm still selfish, hurtful, bad at listening, uncaring, etc. It's really, really frustrating, and I'm trying to not be defensive, trying not to shift blame or walk out of the room (which is typically how I want to deal with things), but it's extremely hard when each time I mess up, I get a tirade of every one of my bad qualities and past crimes.

And that's not to say that my partner isn't trying as well. I know she is. But it makes me wonder--she says I'm not working hard enough because I'm not 100% (ergh, or even 50%) stopping the behaviors that make her angry or hurt. So I guess I'm not floating too much. On the other hand, she's not letting go of any of the past anger and hurt, and she expresses contempt for me about how uncaring I am, what an idiot, how lazy, etc. It's not one bit of a partnership--she flat out said this was all on me. If I try to ask her help, all I get is that I created this mess and therefore I have to fix it because she's got nothing left to give and I made her that way. And until she sees change over a long term and consistency in me, she's not going to believe that I care or that I'm making an effort.

In that scenario, are either of us working hard? Am I just the failure for not being able to change my ways? (And I do notice that I interrupt less often, get defensive for a way shorter time, and I'm forgetting less stuff because I write everything down. But the 'how long' I get defensive doesn't matter to her because if I react defensively even for a second, that's a failure. Same thing for if I impulsively say something that hurts her feelings.) 

Is it possible to save a relationship when it's all up to one person because the other insists that they've been hurt too much to "give" any more? I feel like I'm in a sinking ship with a bucket with a hole. Makes it kinda tough to put in that effort.

(oh, and shortly after I managed to get my partner to come with me to counseling, we stopped altogether, because she felt the counselor was taking my side--the counselor would make suggestions on ways for my partner to contribute and said it wasn't possible for it to be 100% one partner's fault. The counseling wasn't a lot of help anyways because anything I learned about ADHD and tried to explain to my partner, she saw as an excuse for my behavior.)

Is it possible for everything to be on the ADHD person?  How can you convince the non-ADHD who is hurt and angry that your condition is not just an excuse?

This statement of Melissa's is so very true for me.  "Rather than work alone, make a plan for how to gently and non-aggressively approach your partner to request assistance.  This can take some lengthy lobbying, but your best bet for progress is when both of you are involved. " 

Years ago, when I suspected my H of possibly having ADHD my "fear" was NOT about the ADHD. It was knowing that my H would not be receptive to the idea. It was knowing, from experience that if it involved him and I needed him to consider something...it was not going to go well.  I had become "used" to that in our marriage. THAT was THE issue I should have been more concerned about. My H NOT being approachable, receptive to communication with me. While I am aware that adhd does contribute to this, in my mind I also believe that at some point, the caring, thoughtful and loving person takes into consideration a spouses comment, view or observation. Yes, my H has adhd and I never felt for a moment it couldn't be handled by the both of us. I may be a slow learner....but I put myself into it and learned. My H's response to the news was as I expected..sigh. But I hung in there...for him, for us....and selfishly .. for me. In doing so I uncovered a deeper issue that explained my H's "unapproachability" from the beginning of our marriage. The adhd was benign compared to this. 

I believe that any spouse who is NOT approachable( WHO accepts THAT in a marriage?......uh....me) may very well have another perhaps deeper issue. It is worth considering.......because adhd is NOT a deal breaker, in and of itself. And it should not be the end all be all excuse for relationship problems. A rational thinking feeling person who displays a self aware attitude of SOME sort, for the most part.....will consider it. Adhd may cause times of not being "aware" but it is NOT a constant way of being. In other words.....my LOVING approach to my H about adhd was NOT noticed.....and THAT was the REAL problem......

Moved to another thread - I'm new to this site and still trying to navigate properly!