Chapter 9 - MARLENE SAYS HE WAS DRUNKMarlene’s legal strategy became attack Daniel.
She filed affidavit.
Daniel abused alcohol after Rebecca’s death.
Forgot conversations.
Missed school commitments.
Mixed medication and wine.
Needed mother intervention.
Gave POA knowingly.
Now rewriting history under influence of “confused child.”
Daniel read.
Some facts true.
He drank too much for four months after Rebecca died.
Not daily intoxication, but enough.
He missed Lily recital once because board emergency plus hangover? He felt shame.
He forgot pickup one day; nanny handled.
He cried in office.
Yelled at staff.
Slept poorly.
Marlene documented.
If she only concerned mother, understandable.
But secret medication and financial motive.
Daniel’s attorney warned:
“Do not deny true.”
So Daniel admitted publicly/in filings:
“I struggled with grief and alcohol.”
“I sought therapy.”
“I stopped heavy drinking.”
“I was never diagnosed with substance use disorder or incapacity.”
Honest.
Medical records confirm improvement.
Marlene’s accusation “he was drunk when signing” maybe one POA video showed no alcohol evidence.
She told police:
“He often drank before evening.”
Daniel:
“Sometimes wine.”
Tox? no.
Marlene wanted uncertainty.
But key:
Even if Daniel impaired voluntarily, agent has duty not exploit.
Her case not solved.
Then she petitioned family court for temporary contact with Lily, alleging Daniel alienation.
Court allowed no unsupervised pending child welfare.
Marlene cried:
“He’s punishing me.”
Judge:
“This is protective, not final determination.”
Daniel did not demand permanent cutoff.
Lily said she didn’t want.
Therapist supported.
Marlene’s affidavit included:
Lily has always been imaginative and has recently shown attention-seeking behavior.
Daniel’s anger exploded privately.
“She’s calling her liar.”
Nathan:
“She’s challenging reliability.”
“She threatened child then calls imaginative.”
“Yes.”
Daniel wanted release video publicly.
Nathan:
“No.”
Protect Lily.
They used in court sealed.
Good.
Marlene then claimed Daniel coached.
Forensic interviewer notes:
no signs coached.
spontaneous details corroborated.
Camera.
Bag.
Tea.
So.
Then Marlene’s old text to sister Elaine recovered voluntarily:
Daniel is useless after 8pm if I give him his medication. Best time to get signatures.
There.
She didn't say “drug.”
But tactical.
Elaine replied:
That sounds wrong.
Marlene:
It’s prescribed. He needs me.
Conscious exploitation.
Daniel read.
He could no longer hide behind maybe help.
She scheduled important signatures when sedated.
Whether he drank irrelevant.
Then another:
If Danner asks, say Daniel requested.
Oops.
Strong.
Marlene’s own words.
Elaine became reluctant witness.
She loved sister.
But truth.
She told Daniel:
“I thought she was overbearing, not stealing.”
Daniel:
“Why didn’t tell me?”
“You were defending her then.”
Painful.
He probably would.
System.
Marlene said he was drunk.
Daniel said sometimes yes.
But the argument failed because abuse does not become permitted when victim imperfect.
That was emotional theme.
At therapy Daniel said:
“I feel like if I admit I drank, everyone will think she was right.”
Therapist:
“Right that you needed support?”
“Maybe.”
“Right to secretly medicate and take control?”
“No.”
Support vs control.
Daniel learned.
He told Lily age-appropriate:
“After Mom died, Dad sometimes handled sadness in not-great ways.”
Lily:
“Like what?”
“I drank too much wine.”
“Did Grandma make you?”
“No.”
Important.
He owned his choices too.
“Grandma made other bad choices.”
No rewriting all.
This honesty built trust with child.
Marlene’s strategy depended on Daniel being ashamed enough to deny.
May you like
He didn’t.
Once shame removed, her leverage weakened.
Related Stories
