When the relationship can’t be healed, victims often seek help through the court system through divorce and custody proceedings. These proceedings often come hand-in-hand with the archaic practice of forcing the traumatized victim to be in the same room as the abuser for any length of time as, for instance, during settlement hearings, court proceedings, and in co-parenting instruction.

Abusers are very adept at appearing to themselves be the "victim" and convincing the court that their partner - the actual victim - is unstable or even violent. Abusers have often spent years learning which "buttons to push" to elicit certain responses in their victims, and are very good at using words, statements, or even gestures that are so subtle that no onlooker or witness could possibly detect that these actions are intended to incite their victim to action. When the victim reacts, whether in anger or defense, in the way intended by the abuser, the abuser will then use the victim's behavior against the victim, as evidence of the "victim's guilt".  The abuser is a master manipulator, and once the victim has reacted to the abuser's subtle actions and has played directly into the abuser's hands, the abuser will inevitably use the victim's reactions against the victim, in whatever abuser feels is the optimum way and at the time.

For example, this abuse may be as simple as the Father verbally telling the Mother that he will not release their daughter to anyone other than the Mother on her days to pick their daughter up for the Mother's custodial time. The Mother's work schedule varies and she sometimes has to work until after their daughter's bedtime on her custodial pick-up day, and the Father refuses to allow the Mother to disrupt the child's sleep schedule. So the Mother then tells the father that her mother (the child's grandmother) will pick the daughter up on time on the Mother's custodial day, but the Father reiterates his insistence that he will not release their daughter to anyone except the child's Mother, and says that the Mother will just have to pick the daughter up the following morning, which she does, thinking she has no other choice because the Father has been so adamant about only releasing the daughter to the Mother. Since the Mother "cannot" pick the daughter up until the following day, she may even choose to go out to dinner after work with co-workers, go shopping, take a long bubble bath, etc. The Mother mistakenly believes that the Father has the ability or right to insist that only the Mother can pick the daughter up and does not question this. However, when they go to court, the Father states that the Mother is unreliable and self-centered, and that she often chooses to just "not show up" when she's supposed to pick their daughter up for her custodial time and instead she goes out with friends or on a date or heaven only knows what else. Since all the exchanges regarding this issue have been verbal and the Mother has no one who has witnessed the Father's statements to her, the Mother has no recourse - it's actually TRUE that she doesn't always pick her daughter up at the appointed time, but when she states that the Father refused to cooperate regarding her schedule and refused to allow anyone else to pick her daughter up if the Mother has to work late, the Father dons an innocent and amazed expression and says "I don't know WHY she feels she needs to lie about me, I never said those things - I'd never DREAM of keeping my daughter from her Mother!" The Father's statements about the Mother appear to be true since he has the "proof" of the "truth" that the Mother has indeed not always picked the daughter up on time, and the Mother has no proof of the Father's manipulation of the situation. Additionally, if the issue is not addressed in a court document regarding someone else being allowed (or not being allowed) to pick the daughter up if the Mother can't, the Mother has assumed that the Father wouldn't do or say something that the court would not allow, so she didn't even question the Father's actions.

In another, example, an abuser may insist that his victim is "frivolous" with money and as a result he should not be expected to pay Child Support to the victim because she'll spend the money only on herself or on things the children do not need by stating that during their marriage the victim routinely "hid" purchases from him or lied about items she purchased; when the victim responds by angrily insisting that she had to lie about buying things and say that someone gave them to her or to the children because her financially and emotionally abusive partner would get angry when she spent money even on basic necessities, the abuser matter-of-factly states "See how ridiculous she is? She's still lying to try to get more Child Support so she can keep up with her frivolous spending". Believing the statements of the "responsible, loving" father that he would never deny his child anything the child needs, and seeing the victim's seemingly excessive reaction at the prospect of not getting the "extra money", it's easy to see how the court could believe the abuser rather than the victim.

If you have not been the victim of this sort of Abuse through the Court System, it may seem unrealistic or difficult to understand how a "justice system" can allow the lies and manipulations to occur or continue. However, you must remember that the court system - the judge, attorneys, Guardian Ad Litems, etc - have NO HISTORY with the abuser; they are not aware of the abuser's methods and manipulation. Remember, the abuser has a long history of keeping up the appearance of the "perfect" spouse or boyfriend - it's part of what makes his abuse so effective. To "outsiders", he appears to be the perfect husband or father, and is extremely adept at playing part of the martyr or the victim himself; since he knows so well which buttons to push to get his victim to react in the desired way - the reaction he's succeeded in getting from the victim for possibly years - the abuser if very effective in getting the victim to exhibit behavior which makes the victim appear to be unstable, vengeful, unpredictable, not credible, or even abusive herself.

The above examples illustrate the importance of documentation and witnesses when dealing with an abuser and the court system. In addition to their innate ability to manipulate and their seemingly inborn knowledge of how to use the system against their victim, abusers have an arsenal of resources upon which they can draw - there's even seen a document available for download on the internet which instructs abusers on how to continue to abuse their victim via the court system, and it's not uncommon for attorneys who are more interested in money than in the lives of children to instruct their abusive clients in such tactics in order to gain the uppor hand during court proceedings. Victims, by their very nature, are often very trusting and docile, at the very least they do not wish to rock the boat, per se, so they do not typically enter into any proceedings assuming that everything the abuser says and does from that moment forward is designed to destroy them in the court's eyes - it's not how they [the victim] would behave, and they have difficulty believing that anyone could behave in that manner, even their abuser. The abuser, on the other hand, DOES assume that the victim is out to destroy them and automatically take steps to not only counteract the attack they perceive the victim is launching upon them but also launch an unthinkably cruel attack of their own. The result is often that the victim is completely unprepared for the onslaught of accusations, information, and documentation (truthful or not truthful) that the abuser will bombard the court with, leaving the victim open and vulnerable, with absolutely no arsenal of defenses against the abuser's accusations. It is said that abusers, especially verbal/emotional/psychological abusers, imagine everyone else is like they are - they cannot imagine someone not lying, so they automatically start out on the offensive.

[Please note, in the examples above, the abuser has been generically termed "he" and the victim generically termed "she"; please remember that the victim and the abuser can both be of either sex; however, according to statistics, it is much more common for the abuser to be male and the victim female. Please see the section on Statistics for more information.]

Fact Sheet #1: The myth of false accusations of child abuse
Prepared by Michael Flood, March 2005
http://www.xyonline.net/Falseaccusationsabuse.shtml

Facts:
Allegations of child abuse are rare.
False allegations are rare;
False allegations are made by fathers and mothers at equal rates;
The child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence;
Allegations of child abuse rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

The myth
Fathers’ rights groups often claim that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse or domestic violence to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children. For example, Dads On The Air (2005) state that “virtually all the allegations of domestic violence, and all the allegations of child abuse, made in the context of custody allegations are false or greatly exaggerated”. But the Australian research shows that it is fathers’ rights groups who are making the false accusation.

The facts
Allegations of child abuse are rare.

Residence and contact disputes involving allegations of child abuse represent five to seven per cent of all disputes in children’s matters before the Family Court of Australia, according to a study of disputes in 1995-96 (Brown et al., 2001, p. 372). In another study of all cases in 1993 in Western Australia where children’s residence or parental contact were in dispute, only one to two per cent involved allegations of child abuse (Young, 1998, p. 103). In short, the contention that such allegations are rife in family law proceedings is mistaken. In any case, given the prevalence of child abuse in the general population, one should not be surprised that a proportion of family court cases involve allegations of abuse (Young, pp. 102-103).
Child abuse allegations in the context of family law proceedings have been analysed in four Australian studies. These examinations find that allegations rarely are made for tactical advantage, false allegations are rare, the child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence, and such allegations rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

False allegations of child abuse are rare.

In an examination of fifty South Australian Family Court files in which allegations of child sexual abuse had been made between 1990 and 1992, abuse was confirmed in these cases by the statutory agency at a higher rate (42 per cent) than for the general population (37 per cent), and this was higher still if the allegation involved sexual abuse by fathers (Hume, 1996). An analysis of the family court records of 200 cases where child abuse allegations had been made over 1995-96 from two of Australia’s states found that only nine per cent of allegations were false, that is, proven to be untrue, arising either from misunderstandings or from fictitious accusations (Brown et al., 2001, p. 118). This incidence was the same as in the earlier South Australian study, and no greater than the incidence of such allegations outside family law proceedings as reported by child protection services. False allegations were made by both mothers and fathers, and others. Brown et al. report that the substantiated abuse typically was serious and involved multiple forms of harm. The abuse often took place against a background of domestic violence, family violence was more common in these families than in other families known to child protection authorities, and this violence was the most common cause of the relationship breakdown (Brown et al., pp. 119-120).
When allegations of child abuse are investigated by child protection authorities, their reports may indicate that the allegations were substantiated, not substantiated (where there is insufficient information to support either substantiation or an assessment of a untrue accusation), or false (Brown, 2003, p. 374). Fathers’ rights advocates at times inaccurately have represented all unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse as ‘false’, thus dishonestly inflating the proportion of all allegations seen to be without substance.
The most recent Australian study examined all resident and contact disputes where allegations of serious child abuse had been made that came to two registries of the family court in one Australian state, over a one-year period (Brown, 2003). While Brown et al.’s (2001) early study examined cases selected from all families with abuse allegations and found a rate of substantiation of 22 per cent of allegations, the second study found a rate of 52 per cent. Among substantiated abusers, 61 per cent were fathers, 31 per cent were other family members (almost all male), and eight per cent were mothers. Of the four types of abuse (physical, sexual or emotional abuse, and neglect), sexual abuse was the type most likely to be substantiated and males were the most common perpetrators of this (Brown, 2003, pp. 376-377).
Mothers notify the family courts of concerns regarding child abuse at over the twice the rate of fathers, according to the recent Australian study, but these are four times as likely to be substantiated. Of mothers’ allegations, 63 per cent are substantiated, compared to 13 per cent of those made by fathers (Brown, 2003, pp. 372-375). Allegations were assessed as false in 11 out of 147 families, and fathers and mothers were equally likely to have made these. Domestic violence was alleged in 40 per cent of the families studied, and when it was alleged child abuse of all kinds was more likely to be substantiated.

Allegations rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

When fathers are subject to allegations of abuse, their chances of being denied contact with children are remote even if these allegations are substantiated, and the numbers of parents falsely accused of child abuse are tiny compared to the numbers of children who are being abused and about whom the Family Court never hears (Young, 1998, p. 108).
Fathers’ rights advocates contend that women’s allegations of abuse are a successful weapon in family law proceedings. Again, the evidence suggests otherwise. Examination of cases in Western Australia found that the alleged abuser’s contact with the child(ren) was suspended in only a handful of cases (Young, pp. 106-107). In practice, the Family Court tries to determine whether the abuse took place using a far higher standard of proof than the formal, civil standard of a ‘balance of probabilities’, one that is close to the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. As a result, it usually finds that no abuse took place and therefore there is not the ‘unacceptable risk of abuse’ that would compel the Court to avoid granting the child’s residence or contact with the alleged abuser (Young, pp. 107-108). In a more recent study, children going through the West Australian Family Court expressed frustration that their disclosures of abuse and their preferences for no contact with abusive fathers were minimised and rejected as maternal influence (Hay, 2003). Qualitative research among single mothers documents that of women who left violent relationships and then used the Family Court system, none were able to prevent their children’s continuing exposure to abuse through court-ordered contact (McInnes, 2002).

This Fact Sheet may be circulated. It may be reproduced with acknowledgement to Michael Flood. Direct correspondence to michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au, or by mail to PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602.

While the statistics stated above are based on Australia, similar findings exist for other countries, including the USA.

Emotional Abuse and Family Court Proceedings

 "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

Not so, say thousands of women who have been emotionally and verbally abused by their partners and have been unable to have this acknowledged by the legal system.

Both the criminal and family court systems now take physical assault by a man against his female partner reasonably seriously. In the criminal system, protocols for handling arrests, bail hearings, evidence and sentencing have been developed, although penalties remain appallingly light. In the family system, evidence of physical abuse is considered when custody and access determinations are made. Unfortunately, the legal system only addresses abuse when there are bruises and broken bones, even though emotional abuse can inflict longer term injuries that are more difficult to heal. Nowhere is the lack of recognition of emotional abuse more problematic than in family courts, where lifelong decisions about custody and access are made.

Presenting a case in family court that relies strictly or primarily on emotional abuse is a difficult task -- in part because of the lack of definition in the legislation, but also because of the attitudes of most players in the legal arena. The environment of the courtroom also does not provide an atmosphere that is conducive to understanding what any form of abuse does to a woman. [The cumulative effects of repeated and ongoing emotional abuse tactics may be reduced to a series of individual acts that, on their own, are not seen as abuse]. For example, an abusive partner isolates a woman from her friends and family, keeps track of her every move, calls her every hour, goes through her purse, listens to her phone calls, makes all the decisions, and convinces the children that she is not to be respected or listened to.

If we want family court to take emotional abuse seriously, we will have to approach it the same way we did with physical abuse 20 years ago, beginning with education for all players in the legal system. In addition, we must examine the increasing reliance by the family courts on mediation-related initiatives and ensure that those professionals, too, are educated and sensitized to emotional abuse, particularly in screening adequately for mediation. We also need to lobby for legislative reform — there being no more important time than now, with the federal Minister of Justice publicly committed to provincial consultations to respond to the recent House of Commons/Senate report on custody and access entitled "For the Sake of the Children."

When well-educated lawyers, supported by appropriate legislation, are able to present thoroughly documented cases to judges who understand what emotional abuse is, and that it is every bit as serious as physical abuse, decisions about custody and access will begin to reflect what is in the best interests of both women and children.

Persuasive Blamers
Going to Court Against a Borderline
adapted from http://www.bpd411.org

[ Please note - many of the suggestions and tactics suggested below for going to court against someone with a Borderline Personality Disorder are also highly applicable when going to court against an Abuser. In fact, it appears that many abusers also suffer from BPD or similar disorder. ]

In William Eddy's book 'Splitting', he describes borderline and narcissists as persuasive blamers. Indeed, many borderlines are incredibly persuasive, particularly in a sprint. Over the long haul, people can generally figure them out for what they are, but when you first meet a borderline, often you like them a lot. In fact, sometimes you even fall in love with one. Since they don't have the gas to go the distance, they often engage in whirlwind courtships, and you end up married before you know them. (See Siren's Dance for a great case study of how this can happen.)  Frequently, this all too fast marrying leads to an all too slow divorce.

Going to court versus someone with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is another disorienting trip through Alice's Looking Glass or to Oz. Because many high functioning borderlines appear normal or even attractive while out in society, one of the greatest risks in going to court is the Elmer Fudd -vs- Bugs Bunny syndrome. You may appear to the court to be making outrageous statements about a person, who to the court, appears to be totally normal and rational. The judge might even 'fall in love' with the borderline in the sense of making a judgment that they are more believable than you. This is all too often the case because of their short term charm. You cannot allow this to happen. Since you only have control over you, exercising constraint is very important. You must not be too passive, too aggressive, too angry or not angry enough. It's a delicate balancing act in a cauldron of high emotion and slippery facts.

Contrary to popular belief and the Hollywood view, court is not about finding the truth. It is about perception. The perception of one man or woman, the judge. As a human being with limited knowledge, and limited time to collect facts, the judge is only able to make decisions based upon what is presented. Don't expect your lawyer to turn everything around at the last minute by making your soon to be ex-spouse break down Perry Mason-like on the stand.

Many borderlines are highly persuasive over short periods of time. Since most court appearances are very brief, relatively speaking, the mask that they wear while in public is difficult to see around during these brief encounters. It's not the Judge's fault. If you fail, usually it will be because there were not enough admissible facts, or you didn't prepare sufficient or persuasive enough evidence, or the lies of the other party were more persuasive.

What to do: There are a few simple things that can help with this a lot. The most important thing is to focus on evidence. Evidence is not what you say, or even what you know, but is rather what you can prove under the rules of evidence. Evidence can come in the form of witnesses, documentation or perhaps media (tape recordings and so forth). It is also important to educate your lawyer on the situation, or cheaper, find a lawyer who is already educated in matters of personality disorders. Familiarize yourself with the rules of evidence, particularly the rules of hearsay, as they are important to what you can and cannot present in court.

The borderline personality is at home in the court system. The court system is all about making black and white decisions, guilty, not guilty, divorced, are all digital states. Does this sound familiar? For the same reasons that mediation with borderlines fails, going to court is often a successful venue for the borderline personality.

You have to put on the "full armor of God" when you go to court. The time for nice is long since past. Being assertive and forcefully truthful in court is vital. Be cautious of appearing too stoic though as you could be perceived as anti-social.

Understand the process of divorce in your state as close to the beginning of the process as possible. Make sure you understand discovery, orders to show cause, preliminary hearings, Ex Parte hearings and trials. Be prepared for each of these appropriately. Being VERY  prepared for the earliest hearings, especially those involving temporary custody of children is vital, decisions reached early in the process have a way of "sticking" throughout the rest of the child's life until the age of majority (typically 18). So don't let a lawyer tell you that the initial hearings are just temporary, and not to worry, we'll fix it later. Line your ducks up early.

Know the role of each person who could be involved; the judge, the lawyers, the Guardian ad Litem, Special Masters, Evaluators, etc.

Make sure you understand projection. It is a powerful tool of the borderline in court.

Understand that borderlines have a sense of entitlement that knows no bounds. When the Vikings first went to Paris, they were given piles of loot to go away and never come back. This giving in had the opposite effect, and the Parisians had no end of problems with the Vikings for centuries afterwards. They would have been better off fighting hard the first time. The same holds true for court battles with your BPSO (Borderline Personality Significant Other).

If it is supported in your jurisdiction, get a third party appointed to mediate minor problems. In some jurisdictions, these are Special Masters, Guardian Ad Litem or private third party services. Use of these services to schedule visitation and resolve other minor issues is far cheaper than going to court each time. In addition, going to court is often such a slow process that the issue doesn't get resolved until it is too late.

Prepare for potential divorce years ahead of time. Keep a journal. Be on top of the financial dealings of the household. Keep your records or copies somewhere besides the primary residence. Get a post office box. If legal in your jurisdiction, tape record or surreptitiously video tape raging. Keep all of this secret from your spouse. While all of this feels very sneaky, you may be very glad you did this later. Understand that the court may see any current actions of your spouse under the guise of "divorce induced stress", not understanding that these behaviors have been going on for years. You must show the pattern prior to filing for divorce to be persuasive.

Understand the role of evaluators. These are the people who generally decide things like custody. The judge just rubber stamps their decision nine times out of ten. Make sure to take the evaluation process seriously.

Bifurcation is a useful tool. If you can get your marriage ended prior to deciding the issues, this deescalates the situation for the borderline. They know they have lost you, and thusly their abandonment trigger has been fired all at once, and won't have as much ammunition to fire in the future. This can speed things up and save a lot of money.

The Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared" applies doubly to this situation.

You may not believe that your spouse will lie in court. Be prepared for it as a distinct possibility. Know that it does happen in most cases. It comes from self defense. We believe in our society that even murder is justified in cases of self defense, so when their very existence is about to be snuffed out by your abandoning them, lying is justified in their minds. They may not even think of it as lying because due to their cognitive distortions, extreme feelings create extreme facts.

First impressions are important in court. Dress appropriately. Be calm. Be fully honest from the very beginning about the deficiencies of your BPSO. Don't hold anything back, but at the same time don't appear angry. Just present your case forcefully and assertively. This is hard for a Non (Non-BPD) to do because we don't want to damage our BPSOs. You simply cannot afford to be nice to the other person in court, it won't go your way. Be civil, not merciful.

Never allow your BPSO to be given a lie detector test. They can often fool these devices because they truly believe the constructions they have created in their minds.

Your BPSO can be persuasive simply by repeating lies. Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe you.

One of the more difficult decisions is whether to bring up borderline personality disorder itself before the judge or the evaluator. If you have a firm diagnosis from a therapist who has been working with your significant other for some time, you might seriously consider it. If you have a difference of opinion between therapists, or don't have an official diagnosis, I'd say forget about it. Does that mean they win? No. What it means is that you have to focus on the behaviors not the diagnosis. You know the behaviors they exhibit because you know which lines in the DSM describe them. Most borderlines, for example, rage. Focus on the raging. If you have a witness of the raging, get that person to the evaluator and if necessary to the judge. Trying to prove that they have BPD is not helpful.

Court brings out the worst in everyone. This is doubly true of borderlines. The gloves are off, and they are fighting in their mind for their very survival. Remember the analogy from Stop Walking On Eggshells about the four year old being left alone in the mall and that's how someone with bp traits feels all the time? Well, a borderline in the middle of a divorce may feel they are being left out on the ice to freeze to death. They now know that they were right all along, and that it always was your intention to abandon them. You are now the anti-Christ. Their world view is that if they are going down, they are going to take you and everyone else who 'caused' their problems with them.

The time for walking on eggshells is long since past. Be safe, get a security system, move, whatever is necessary, but stop walking on eggshells.

Stop communicating off the record. Communicate ONLY through your lawyer or special master. While this may seem slow, ineffective, or expensive, it will be quicker, more effective and less expensive over time. Your emotional outbursts will cost you later.

Giving in early will be unlikely to produce a good outcome. Some of the best results come from fighting hard. Don't let them think you are still the pushover you were when you were with them. Don't hold back facts from the court because they may offend your significant other, in fact by embarrassing them in court, you may help cool their desire to visit court again.

Without Kids: If you don't have children, count your lucky stars, twice. All you have to fight over is things. Money, cars and homes can be replaced in time (assuming the stupid economy ever recovers). Alimony can be paid (if you are male). You might even be ruined financially, but then again, without the drag of BPD on your life, what might you be able to achieve? Most women who divorce end up with less resources than they had before. Most men end up with more, despite the fact that men most often pay alimony.

In many cases, mediation will proceed trial proceedings. We discuss mediation elsewhere, but we'll mention here that entitlement is the key feature of the borderline personality that enters into mediation.

If you are married to a borderline, but are not currently considering divorce, at least consider sterilization or long term birth control, so that you don't have to go through this with children should things change in the future. In addition, having a child can trigger abandonment feelings in your significant other and change relationship dynamics so much that divorce then becomes inevitable for the sake of the children. Read the books on divorce, and have an attorney in mind, since it is just as likely that your significant other will file for divorce abandoning you before you can abandon them.

You may be tempted to quickly settle all monetary issues of the divorce in favor of your soon to be ex-spouse in order to focus on the children. Do not do this! First, it increases their sense that they will get everything they want (entitlement) and may induce them to fight even harder for the children. Second, it implies a feeling of guilt that is sensed by the court or evaluators.  If you can express the importance of your children to everyone EXCEPT your significant other, that is the best course. With your significant other, up until you are in court, just say, "I'm sure that we both have the best interest of the children in mind. It will all work out for the best." Meanwhile, behind the scenes, fight like hell for them.

Disclaimer: The information on this site (http://www.bpd411.org) is based on personal experiences of the authors and members of our e-mail mailing list. It is NOT meant to replace professional advice or take the place of counseling, therapy or additional personal research.

Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Turtle Island Center Family Services [1996] Incorporated