Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Getting it Backwards in Family Court—Winners & Losers
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:05): Welcome to us all Your Fault on True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and deal with the most challenging human interactions, those with someone who may have a high conflict personality. I'm Megan Hunter, and I'm here with my co-host Bill Eddie. Speaker 2 (00:23): Hi everybody. Speaker 1 (00:24): We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California. We focus on training, consulting, and educational programs and methods, all to do with high conflict. So in today's episode, we're going to talk about family court and why sometimes it ends up being very different from what we might expect. Sometimes it seems as though things are upside down and you know, perhaps this is because when personality disorders and persuasive blames are involved, people just don't know what's really going on. But first, a couple of notes. If you have a question about a high conflict situation, please send it to podcast high conflict institute.com or on our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast, where you'll also find all the show notes and links. Please give us a rate of review and tell your friends, colleagues, or family about us, especially if they're dealing with a high conflict situation. Um, we've been hearing from several of you around the world who say, you listened to us and we're just so grateful for that. And it, it's very exciting. So write and tell us what you like and um, what questions you have. Speaker 1 (01:33): So let's dive in today. Um, bill, when we first met, our focus, you know, individually in our careers was, was family court from the court side. I would hear complaints from parents that the courts were so, you know, so screwed up. It was all the judge's fault. The court gets things backwards. Um, you know, they get it so backwards that they think I am the high conflict parent, and that's just nuts, , right? Um, and then you in your career we're representing clients as an attorney, and I think you probably heard much the same and noticed the same, which must have been pretty shocking and really was, you know, I think the genesis of your development, of the concept of the high conflict, uh, personality. So let's talk family court and, and getting it backwards. What do you mean by getting it backwards? Speaker 2 (02:22): Well, what happens is judges, lawyers, mediators, therapists, even parents and family members, often believe the wrong person. And it's not that the person may be lying, although many of these cases someone is lying, but that they honestly believe things that are false. They see themselves as victims. They think the other party has caused all their distress. And I learned about this as a mental health professional, that people with personality disorders feel like a victim in life. And they're kind of trying to understand why do things happen to me? They don't connect the dots. And so they go, oh, it must be you. And it's often family members, people closest to them, and when they're getting divorced, that's an intolerable feeling and experience. And so many honestly believe it is all the other person's fault. They go to court and they're so intense with blame that they're persuasive blamers because it's so emotional. Speaker 2 (03:27): When someone gives false information and it's emotional, then it's much more likely to be believed, even though it's false. Family court professionals, like I said, judges, lawyers, mediators, therapists that are involved often really don't understand and don't get it. And one of the hard things for judges who we have a lot of empathy for in these cases is that they don't have much time. And so they very quickly go, oh, so that's what's happening. Oh, so dad abused the child, or mom's alienating the child. So that's what's going on in this case. Let's talk about what to do. The thing we wanna get across today, I think to everybody is don't assume you know what's going on right away. It has to be clearer because of the nature of personality disorders and the nature of blame. And people with personality disorders really don't see their part and they may persuade everybody else. Speaker 1 (04:31): It applies across the board really, not just in family court, but in any scenario where you're around someone, uh, you know, who is a persuasive blamer. And I, I find it really fascinating that when emotion is involved along with that, that blame that even when the dots aren't connecting, right, when, when things don't add up, we still believe it be there's because of that emotional pull. Right? Speaker 2 (04:52): Exactly. In fact, I've been reading recently about the illusion of truth and that it's often because of repetition and emotion. And we, we all know that with social media and how it flies around the world, if it's false, well, what makes it fly around the world faster is because it's emotional. It's the emotion and the repetition and, and our brains, that's how we're wired is whatever's the most important, is what gets repeated and what has the biggest emotions. So we really have to have a, a healthy skepticism. Speaker 1 (05:29): So why, why is it that people with high conflict personalities do this? Speaker 2 (05:34): It seems to be that this, this lack of connection, there's a lack of self-awareness. And you, you and I, Megan often talk about is just not connecting the dots, um, back to their own behavior that they honestly are blind to, to what their part is in the problem. People with personality disorders have a lot of cognitive distortions, which everybody has a little bit. But then we check ourselves, go, wait a minute, is that really true? But often people with personality disorders believe their cognitive distortions. So child comes back sad from a weekend with the other parent, probably missing the parent. They just left. And I've had cases where the receiving parent goes, oh, child must have been abused. Dad must have hurt the child. And jumping to conclusions, that's a cognitive distortion, minimizing important things and maximizing, uh, little things. But in many ways it really comes down to cluster B, personality disorders and cluster B personality disorders are antisocial, histrionic, narcissistic, and borderline. Speaker 2 (06:49): And the research tells us that they tend to be domineering, vindictive, and intrusive. And that means that they may be willing to knowingly make false statements, especially the antisocial personalities in order to get something they want right now. But also it may be that they're just distorting because they're used to seeing themselves as victims. So it's, it's sad because they don't get it. And I, I have to convince a lot of parents say, well, the court got it backwards and I may agree. And they think, well, the judge wasn't very smart or, or something or other. I say, no, the judges are very sincere. That's what makes them so vulnerable to persuasive blames. And, and a parent says, the judge didn't get it in our half hour hearing. And I'll say, well, how long did it take you to realize this? You married this person . How long did it take you to realize what you were getting into? So it's, it's part of the nature of personality disorders. And it's not to be judgemental, but to be understanding this is a dynamic that needs to be really talked about and we need to become more aware of. Speaker 1 (08:07): That's very interesting about, about judges. You know, the judges I've met and I've, you know, met many in my career, um, in family court and in general, they're very sincere about their work. Many don't come into the family court with a lot of experience with families or any other outside of their own family. Uh, they didn't get the training in law school or they've been in a different area of law before, uh, being appointed or, um, elected to the bench. So I really see many just trying to do the best they can, but sometimes with that persuasive blame, they can get it backwards and like you said, in such a short period of time, um, it's gotta like get kind of like going to the doctor these days. You get, you know, four minutes . Um, it's, it's tough. It's tough. So why do you know professionals believe these persuasive blames like the lawyers or therapists and Speaker 2 (08:59): Every profession I've seen mistake these? I think more than anything it's because they don't have training and personality disorders and they don't understand the dynamic of blame. That that's such a big part of it, that the person can't connect the dots. So they're really emotionally invested in the blame of the other person. And let's look at lawyers for example. Lawyers want to be heroes. And so, oh my goodness, what's happened to you? I will defend you or I will fight for you. And so they, they kind of take this up. Uh, a week ago I was in a court hearing a zoom court hearing and I saw the lawyer on the other side ask a question of one of the witnesses. And the lawyer looked incredibly shocked by the answer. And what I realized is, he's been getting fed bad information by his client who assumed something else was true about the other side. Speaker 2 (09:59): That wasn't true at all. And so lawyers get surprised, partly cuz they wanna be heroes. Therapists gets surprised cuz they form a connection, a bond with their client and their client says, you know, my, my husband or my wife is just so, uh, terrible to me or abusive of me or of the child. And the therapist's like, oh, you've, you've gotta get out of there. You've gotta, you know, this person sounds ho I'll, I'll write a letter about this other person who I've never met. Which by the way is unethical for therapists to do, but they still do it sometimes is you're not supposed to be writing to court about someone you never met. Mediators get hooked too emotionally. They see one party's just really difficult and the other party's really flexible and reasonable and you see them leaning on the reasonable person so that the, the more difficult person won't, won't be as upset. And they're getting it backwards cuz the more difficult person's complaining and blaming and the, the, the mediator feels a lot of empathy for them. Now I know all the people I've just criticized, lawyers, therapists and mediators are people. I've been Speaker 1 (11:18): Speaker 2 (11:19): , right? Because I was a therapist and then I became a lawyer and I've been a mediator throughout. And in terms of judges, I do a lot of tr trainings for judges and you're absolutely right, they're really sincere people. And the problem is lack of knowledge and lack of time, not lack of sincerity or intelligence. Very intelligent people. So a lot of it I think is just not having training in how people can get, can fool you and believing that you understand things. You don't. You have to have a healthy skepticism. And I tell myself all the time, I'm never more than 95% certain what's going on. You've gotta keep your mind open. Speaker 1 (12:04): Yeah. And it's important to have a, I guess as a professional, it's, it's challenging be because of the sort of the paradox of needing to represent your client or, you know, do the best you can Absolutely can for your client and in whatever role you're in. Sometimes I think that we can become myopic as professionals in that regard instead of maybe looking, taking a look at the, the bigger picture and what could be going on. Speaker 2 (12:29): Exactly. Speaker 1 (12:30): Do you have any examples of, you know, like this may be in domestic violence or alienation cases? Speaker 2 (12:36): Yeah, so I've been involved in cases where I figure out it's domestic violence, but the other person is so good at looking reasonable that either the court minimizes it or doesn't believe it. Now there's a case I know of, I wasn't involved in this case. Uh, a case where a woman went to court, there was a one-year-old child and she said, my ex-husband is depressed. I'm concerned that he is suicidal. I think any contact he has with the child should be supervised and should be very minimal, you know, like a couple hours a week. I remember reading about it that the judge said, I don't believe you and I think you're trying to, uh, interfere with his time as a parent and he's the father and this is a young child and he needs to bond with the child early on. Have the child have an attachment with him. So I'm not going to give you the restraining order in the supervised contact you're asking for. Well, sad to say a week later, the man kills the child and kills himself. Speaker 1 (13:50): Oh dear. Speaker 2 (13:51): Yes. And he was depressed and she, she saw that and she talked about that she knew him better than anybody else in the courtroom. The judge was wrong in that case and of course felt terrible about it. So that's domestic violence and, and danger to a child, child abuse risk of that, asking for a restraining order, stuff like that. I've seen it both ways where it's not believed when it's true or when it's believed when it's false. Now alienation, you know, people are becoming much more aware of that. Some people didn't think that existed before. Now it's pretty much people realize there's alienating behaviors and children resist a parent because of alienating behaviors. And I've been involved in cases where that's what was going on, but my client was accused of having abused the child or done something bad. And so they got very little contact. Speaker 2 (14:49): On the other hand, I've had cases where there was some abusive behavior and it was seen as alienation and so the child didn't wanna be around the parent who was abusive, that the other parent's just alienating against that parent. And so we're gonna have a child with that abusive parent. And so that happens, estrangement, estrangement is when it's something the parent does that pushes the child away. And I've had cases where it was emotional, such an intense emotional parent that the child wanted to get away from them. And that was estrangement one. And yet it was misunderstood as alienation by the other parent who was like, Hey, I'm trying to protect the child cuz this other parent really is emotionally abusive. So people need to realize there's more than one possibility and they all look the same on the surface. You have an angry parent blaming the other parent, you have the other parent very defensive pointing the finger back. That's the same whether they're true or false cases like this, you just have to keep your mind open and consider all of these possibilities, especially when you're explaining a child's behavior and resistance to a parent. Speaker 1 (16:11): I can imagine that the, uh, judges on these cases wish they had a crystal wall or they could be a fly on the wall for an extended period of time in in the homes. Right, Speaker 2 (16:20): Exactly. It's, it's funny, I've had cases where, where one parent's like, oh my goodness, you know, the, the, my husband's treating me so badly in court and then I'm out in the hallway when they come outta court. And the woman that was saying, oh, my husband treats me so badly, starts screaming at the husband, and the husband's just intimidated, but he doesn't speak up and it's the opposite of what was going on inside the courtroom. So that's why evidence is so important if you have it. Speaker 1 (16:51): Mm. Right. So let's switch gears a bit and talk about, you know, what can be done about this and how, how can people overcome this? Speaker 2 (16:59): Well, the first thing I think is just understanding that this happens and that our own brains can get tricked. And so rather than going, well, let's see what's happening here is you need to weigh, is this domestic violence? Is this a false allegation of domestic violence? Is this child abuse? Is this a false allegation of child abuse? Is this alienation, is this a false allegation? And a false allegation doesn't mean that it's knowingly false in many cases it's honestly believed. So you have to consider that this credible, sympathetic looking person in front of me may actually be saying things that aren't true, but they believe them. And so when the person believes it, they can look credible, but it doesn't mean it's accurate. People distort more than we realize, especially people with personality disorders. Again, it's not to be judgemental, it's to be knowledgeable and adapt for that. We have to equally consider these possibilities rather than quickly jumping to one conclusion and sticking with that. Speaker 1 (18:12): So let's talk about three theories of the case. Professionals really need to, just like you're saying here, instead of, you know, jumping to your own conclusion or in the absence of time going, okay, I've just gotta make a quick decision here. You really need to consider three theories of the case. Speaker 2 (18:28): It boils down really to who you believe, which parent you believe. So parent A says Parent B is acting badly, maybe it's substance abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, alienation, et cetera. You have to take that seriously and examine that possibility and ask questions, go, you know, how long has this been happening? Give me more details. And I'm saying, give me more details. I'm saying lawyers need to do this with their clients too, and therapists need to do this. That's when we made the videos on domestic violence. One of the biggest things I learned from that. So you have to ask specific questions. If you say, were you abused? The client will say, of course not. No, I wasn't abused. If you say, were you ever slapped, punched, knocked down on the floor or choked? Well, yeah, those things happen to me, but I, Speaker 1 (19:20): I don't think, but that was no big deal, right? Right. That's, that wasn't domestic violence . Right? Speaker 2 (19:24): So you have to ask these kinds of questions, so consider that it's true, person B is acting badly, but then you also have to consider the opposite. That person A who's saying all of this is the one who's acting badly, they're distorting or they're knowingly lying, or they honestly believe something that's not true. And person B is totally innocent of this. And some people wrongly think, someone who's accused of something must be guilty of something. Maybe it's small, you know, they must have done something to make the other person think about this. And that's not true. There's many times it's totally a projection from person A. There's a third possibility. And that's both people are acting badly. Sadly, that's one of the most common false presumptions in family courts with all family professionals. Because when the no fault divorce laws came out around the 1970s, it was that people say, don't argue in court. Speaker 2 (20:33): You're just, you know, don't blame each other. You're both equally responsible here, calm down and, you know, work things out. But when there is an abuser, someone is engaged in domestic violence, or when there is someone engaged in alienating behaviors, it, many of these cases are one-sided and you've gotta look at that possibility. But some of them, both people are contributing fairly equally. So when we talk of the three theories of the case, it's that person A, is acting badly, or person B is acting badly, or both are acting badly. And you have to have an open mind and consider each of those possibilities equally. Otherwise you miss a lot of important information. Speaker 1 (21:21): And I would think kind of a, maybe a red flag or something, you know, in checking yourself is if, if you just instantly believe that you know exactly what the truth is, right? Check yourself and think, okay, I better consider three theories . Yeah. And so that you don't get trapped, you know, hooked, you might be emotionally hooked, um, or you just might not have all the information. So that's, I think, I think that's a, a, a self-checking mechanism that we all should have. Speaker 2 (21:49): Yes. Yeah, that's a really good way to put it. We need to check ourselves regularly, regularly, Speaker 1 (21:55): . Right? So wrapping this up is there, you know, kind of some quick nuggets you can, um, provide to lawyers, counselors, judges, mediators, parents, um, and what they can do. I Speaker 2 (22:09): Think it helps to openly talk about these possibilities. So if you're a lawyer and your client comes in and they say, my husband's a narcissist, and he just doesn't pay attention to the kids, and I don't think he should have much parenting time, that lawyers should say, well, you know, if we go to court, the judge has to consider three possibilities that what you're saying is true. That what you're saying is not true at all, or that you're both contributing to the problems. So let's talk about this, let's get some detail and have lawyers have their clients be realistic and say, if this really is one-sided, you need to give me, uh, a lot of information about that. And ask specific questions like domestic violence, alienation, child abuse, et cetera, substance abuse counselors. Similarly, I think counselors so quickly bond with their clients that they escalate sometimes how big something is. Speaker 2 (23:12): And a client might say, you know, my wife is just, you know, influencing the children against me. And the counselor may go, oh, well that's a terrible, instead of going, well, let's talk about that more in what ways and are, are there things you can do? Is this actually what's going on for judges? I I really hope someday that judges say, sir, ma'am, I've heard each of you and I have to tell you, I have to consider three possibilities that dad is telling the truth and mom is distorting things, maybe knowingly, maybe not on purpose. Another possibility is that mom's telling the truth and dad's distorting things maybe knowingly or not on purpose. And I have to consider the possibility that you're both contributing to the problems like a child's resistance to go with a parent. And so I have considered each of these, and in this case, with the information I have, I'm believing mom in this case and I'm giving protective orders that makes sense based on that. Speaker 2 (24:22): But I'm gonna keep my mind open. And if we come back to another hearing and you have new information, I'm gonna take all the information seriously. Lastly, for parents is to give your lawyers your therapists full information and explain why. It's that you are the reasonable person if you are, and what the other person's doing and what you're doing. Um, because sometimes people have made some mistakes and they don't mention that to their lawyer or their therapist. And so people take their side without knowing the whole picture. To me, it's all about information. It's not about who's good and who's bad. It's about what information do we need and what information can we act on here? And that's really what it should be about. Finger pointings useless to me, the question is what's really going on and how can we help families and help their kids? Speaker 1 (25:25): That's so valuable, right? To, to think of it in terms of information instead of who's the bad person here. Speaker 1 (25:39): Thank you, bill. You know, I, we hope you listeners were, um, enraptured by this and learned something new. Um, we are really grateful that you listened today. Next week we'll talk about, um, telling a high conflict spouse that you want a divorce. That's a pretty popular topic anytime, but it seems even more popular at the beginning of the year. Pe a lot of people wait till, um, the first of the year to tell their spouse and, and if it's, you know, a high conflict situation, it can be a little terrifying or dicey. Until then, send your questions to podcast high conflict institute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast. And until next time, keep striving toward peace. It's all Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music, by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins, and zip Moran. Find the show, show notes and transcripts@truestory.fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.