[Related link, SEE:  PART 2 – December 2025]

Gaslighting the Divorce

Some people have a behavior pattern of manipulating a situation by ‘roadblocking’¹ it. The person declares that certain ambiguous obstacles must be overcome or avoided before a decision can be made or before a discussion can move forward. It is a gaslighting technique that allows one person to stall the efforts of another person.

Cassie² has used this behavior many times in our relationship. I usually don’t recognize the tactic until it becomes obvious that the obstacle isn’t real and she is simply refusing to move forward.

After Cassie returned from her Guam trip, I had hoped she would be willing to engage in discussions about the only significant issue of the divorce:  the division of our combined assets. Until we decided how to divide the assets, I was in a state of limbo. I couldn’t move forward with establishing an independent life without knowing what my financial situation would be after the divorce.

Dividing the Major Assets

In January, it became obvious Cassie did not want to proceed with negotiations to divide our combined assets because she controlled all the major assets³. The divorce would mean she would have to give me half of at least one of those assets.

The division of two of the major assets were already in her favor. I had no legal claim to the IRA she inherited from her father. I felt I had a legitimate argument regarding the ownership of the house; yet, she had the upper hand on that issue because my name was not on the title.

However, the one issue a divorce would force her to give in on was her retirement. Legal precedent divides retirement accounts between both parties. During a rare discussion about the divorce, she said,

So I will say that’s the one piece that I’m really struggling with. I know what the law says, and I just…but I feel like…I feel…that would be devastating for me to draw half of that down. It would delay my retirement substantially. And I don’t think that’s fair.

My Spouse on 16 January 2026

Moving forward would mean she would have to concede half of her retirement, and she legally had no choice.

January Freeze

When Cassie agreed to the divorce, she had given me two conditions. First, no lawyers. Roadblocking me on retaining an attorney stalled the divorce because if I engaged an attorney, we would have to move forward, and she would lose control of the situation.

Second, there was the ambiguous delay because “she had too many things on her mind during the holidays.” Her trip to Guam was part of that excuse, and I accepted it at face value. Both conditions were a way of gaslighting progress on the divorce.

However, upon her return, she continued to insist she couldn’t think about the divorce because she had too much going on. I began to realize what she was doing, yet I continued to wait. We did engage in two impromptu conversations about the divorce. The first was the aforementioned discussion where she expressed her reluctance to share any of the major assets, regardless of what the law required. The second was on 20 January, after she had a consultation with an attorney.

The Suggestion

By late January, she probably sensed that I was becoming impatient. Finally, during the discussion of the 16th, she told me that she had set up a consultation with an attorney. I took this to be a positive sign, as any reputable lawyer would offer a realistic perspective and we could move forward.

On 20 January, Cassie again came to me and engaged in an impromptu discussion about what the attorney had told her. She said,

… But, uh, I asked a question. And I hope this doesn’t make you unhappy. I don’t want it to make you unhappy. But because I’m not trying to be, like, mean or anything. But I said, “I’m not sure it’s totally comfortable for us to be we’re we’re living together at the moment. It’s been fine. And, you know, we’re not we’re getting along fine.” And I I don’t have a problem with it necessarily…but it’s not the most comfortable thing ever.

This was the first time she brought up the subject of me moving out. I was not opposed to leaving, provided we had a framework for dividing up the assets.

Cassie continued,

So what you know, what would it look like to do some you know, pull some money right now so that Paul could go and and start…um, but what would that look like? And…and I’m not saying that you should have to or that I’m asking you to. But I want I want to know answers. … I said, “What would it look like if if there needed to be some money now, even before the decree, happened, like, would that be counted against the final decree and the lawyer said, ‘That is a Pandora’s box. That is risky”

The idea that she would give me some money to move out was novel; however, she took that carrot away immediately. Next, she offered me a reassurance in the form of my ownership rights on the house. Cassie said,

However, what you should know is there is absolutely nothing… … if you left the house, if you wanted to leave the house, that you would be giving it up. Or … that would be abandonment or something. She said, “That’s not that’s not really how that works.” So at any point that you needed to do separate things, you can do separate things. …If…if you left, …or if I went and lived somewhere for a none of that matters at all. There’s not, like, a “you left, therefore you’re you know, you’ve given up your rights” to anything. … And I’m not suggesting that, like, gosh, you got to get out. I paid it, you have to go. That’s that’s not what I’m …suggesting.

At the time, I didn’t realize that she and her attorney had a plan and this conversation was an attempt to strengthen her claim on the house. That wouldn’t become apparent until February.

Moving Forward, Not Out

The conversation prompted me to consider things I could do while waiting for Cassie to negotiate a divorce settlement with me. In late January, I began looking at cities and jobs in regions that were 1) at lower altitudes, 2) were cycling friendly, and 3) had milder winters.

While researching Fayetteville, Arkansas, I discovered a job opening that appealed to me and that I felt I was qualified for, so I applied. I was offered a phone interview, and I began researching the area. Before the phone interview, I decided to take a scouting trip to Fayetteville and one or two other cities in the southeast. If I found a job, I could move before the divorce was finalized. Regardless of the outcome of the trip, I would have more information about relocating and both of us would have some space for a few weeks.

I was also walking into a trap.

¹“Roadblocking” is a term meaning to intentionally or unintentionally create an obstacle that halts progress, stalls a process, or prevents a situation from moving forward.

²Some names have been changed.

³Our major assets were 1) the house worth around $400,000, 2) her retirement account worth about $$275,000, and 3) an IRA she inherited from her father worth around $165,000.

 

NEXT: Divorce Without Mercy Part 4 – February 2026

[NOTE:  This is a series focusing on my experiences during a divorce with a difficult person and her attorney. I am not a licensed psychologist nor an attorney. If you are dealing with a divorce situation, you should consult an attorney for legal advice and seriously consider seeking mental health support from a licensed counselor to deal with the trauma.]