“DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing…display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of ‘falsely accused’ and attacks the accuser’s credibility or even blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.”
—Jennifer J. Freyd, Ph.D.
I discovered this quotation and the acronym it unpacks in Dr. Tara Palmatier’s “Presto, Change-o, DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender,” one of the most validating explications of the motives of false accusers I’ve read. There’s nothing in it that I can’t identify with personally, and I’ve heard from many others who I know would respond similarly.
DARVO seems to be a combination of projection, denial, lying, blame-shifting, and gaslighting…. It also seems to be common behavior in most predators, bullies, high-conflict individuals, and/or abusive personality-disordered individuals.
Goaded by some instances of blame-shifting that screamed at me from the e-petition “Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence,” I recently wrote about “Role Reversal: Using Restraining Orders to Conceal Misconduct and Displace Blame.” I even referred to Dr. Palmatier’s work in the post, not yet having come across the above-mentioned entry in her own blog, which incisively exposes the origins of false motives.
Dr. Palmatier is a psychologist who specializes in treating male victims of domestic violence and abuse, but the behaviors she elucidates aren’t gender-specific, and both male and female victims of blame-shifting will be edified by her revelations, among them “why many Narcissists, Borderlines, Histrionics, and Antisocials effectively employ smear-campaign and mobbing tactics when they target someone” (“By blaming others for everything that’s wrong in their lives, they keep the focus off the real problem: themselves”).
At least a few visitors are brought here daily by an evident interest in understanding the motives of personality-disordered individuals—usually their spouses, lovers, or exes—who’ve obtained restraining orders against them by fraud or otherwise abused them through the courts. If you’re such a reader, consider whether this sounds familiar:
The offender takes advantage of the confusion we have in our culture over the relationship between public provability and reality (and a legal system that has a certain history in this regard) in redefining reality. Future research may test the hypothesis that the offender may well come to believe in [his or her] innocence via this logic: if no one can be sure [s/he] is guilty then logically [s/he] is not guilty no matter what really occurred. The reality is thus defined by public proof, not by personal lived experience [quoting Dr. Freyd].
So thorough and laser-sighted is Dr. Palmatier’s topical treatment of “[a]busive, persuasive blamers [who] rely on the force of their emotions to sell their lies, half-truths, and distortions” that there’s little point in my repeatedly quoting it and adding my two cents, but I eagerly bring it to the attention of those who’ve been attacked through the courts by abusers who used them as scapegoats to mask their own misconduct.
Dr. Palmatier remarks, “This behavior is crazy-making if you are the target of it.” If you respond, Amen—and especially if you respond, F*ckin’ A!men—read this.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
Katie McMurray
April 30, 2022
Why isn’t this more illegal in America? The damage a boarderline woman or covert/vulnerable narc can do with their insane victim stories is appalling. Even before devalue and discard it’s all just meaningless lies to get you to worship and fill whatver need they need at the time. They’ll tell you the most meaningful things you ever wanted to hear from a partner from the start and lie with every breath. You’ll feel like throwing up looking at the past feeling so foolish and so broken for ever believing in them, being proud of them for their growth… while you send them away on their big first trip “Alone”… and oh wait.. that was all lies too?!??! No way.. how why would anyone choose to be so cruel to another people and then lable them the abuser? Do they ever come to their senses or are they too far gone lost in their sad little bubble world they made and probably deserve?
LikeLike
Todd Greene
June 23, 2022
It’s axiomatic that the court is 20 years behind reality. There are people who have spoken to what you describe. This is very good:
Click to access Beth-High-Conflict-Family-Law-Matters.pdf
LikeLike
McMurray
August 13, 2022
It’s so damning even if it some girls little revenge plot for things she imagined… just the accusations are enough to ruin your life. It’s pathetic to see women claiming to be feminists abusing the law, programs for women actually in need and pushing this kind of ghosting and manipulation as some form of bravery. They Twist psychology and the just find groups that enable covert narcissists like my ex to abuse and project all her trauma into someone else
LikeLike
Geneva Norton
September 23, 2022
Because the legal system makes a lot of money off these kind of break ups. Some entitled party can ghost and say whatever they want, it’s evil but a lot of online support groups actually support this like some basge of honor to abuse the system. They don’t care about the lives the wreck as long as they never have to face it and can lie to the people kn their lives, its devastating.. I really hope you can recover and they to put it in the past. They need to take their trauma out on others it doesn’t make you a fool for loving them… take care
LikeLike
shrink4men
February 24, 2014
Hello Moderator,
Do you have an email I can use to contact you? You can reach me at shrink4men@gmail.com.
Kind Regards,
Dr Tara
LikeLike
Moderator
February 26, 2014
I sent an email titled, “Your comment,” Dr. Tara.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 3, 2014
Here are two websites, for which one has a well-written article about personality disorders and blame, that involve the family court system:
1) Eddy, William A. LCSW, Esq. How Personality Disorders Drive Family Court Litigation. A Newsletter from the Law and Mediation Office of William A. Eddy, LCSW, Esq.
2) HighConflictInstitute.com
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 4, 2014
Supposedly, William A. Eddy, LCSW, Esq. copyrighted the _How Personality Disorders Drive Family Court Litigation_ in the year of 1999. I find the year that article was written to be impressive, because there was a lack of psychological literature on the Internet except for databases. An individual had to interact with things in order to know things or be a professional dealing with those issues. And I find that Attorney William Eddy was able to learn more about psychology during 1980 while training at the San Diego Child Guidance Clinic at Childrens Hospital. In my reading of the involvement of psychology in law, there is a serious lack of psychological interpretation, despite the involvement of mens rea in many legal proceedings. However, in the 21st century, an individual starts to see a greater emphasis of an interdisciplinary approach in various professional fields.
I find William Eddy’s article to be incredibly insightful. In domestic violence, an individual may be engaging in a level of selfishness and lack of empathy toward one or more individuals (alleged victims), thus generating an ability for an individual to be labeled an “abuser.” However, even though the mens rea may not be there, the personality issue that could label an individual as an “abuser” is the selfishness. Thus, a person might be so much of a narcissist that he or she is unable to understand how his or her behavior is affecting another person. Thus, I believe that William Eddy was able to take a step back, look at the issues between parties in court litigation, and notice that people were disagreeing about perspective and what needs to be done in a family relationship: Social contract theory. And I believe what it can come down to is how personality disorders can lead to one or more individuals breaking social contract theory, thus bringing a domestic issue between members of society into civil litigation.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 4, 2014
Another thing that I like about that article by William Eddy was how he noticed the butterfly effect of individuals who are being adversarial in a social relationship. The adversarial approach in a social relationship can bring about tension that may end up in the legal system. Thus, as one maintains an adversarial position against an individual of whom he or she develop a social relationship with, there may be an underlying adversarial position against the social contract that had maintain the former social relationship. I am amazed by the amount of insight that attorney William Eddy had in developing the article, which is copyrighted in 1999. In many ways, one could assume that the reason the issue came to the courts is because there was a lack of therapeutic resolve between individuals in pinpointing the issues in the relationship. Thus, unresolved issues remain when the adversarial approach continues. So, it could be said that even though an individual may not have committed a crime or civil tort against his or her former significant other, the refutation of the necessity of a legal proceeding leaves the psychological issues that were underpinning the matter coming to the court in the first place. And even if an individual cannot refute the necessity of the legal proceeding, it still leaves behavioral issues that had not been remedied prior to the legal proceedings, thus potentially generating cause for the legal proceeding whether as a distal or proximate cause.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 8, 2014
Sadly, just Mr. Eddy’s observing that motives can be false is impressive all by itself. When, as you evidently have, you look around for other attorneys who’ve remarked the same, you find that he’s basically dared to voice the ineffable (he’s broken the taboo).
My suspicion is that law (black-and-white) has always looked upon psychology (gray) with resentment and dubiety. Law presumes facts = truth. Psychology says “facts” are superficial interpretations that may be misleading.
You’d like to see the courts investigate, which is really what justice requires. The orientation of the courts, meanwhile, is to quickly dispose of a matter. In my final brief to the court last fall, I challenged the judge’s conclusion that a decision can be “speedy and just” (a phrase quoted ad litteram from his penultimate ruling). The judge wasn’t moved.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 8, 2014
I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve also tried to introduce a psychological interpretation to a judge. It was completely disregarded. When you consider that all motives are psychological—or, as you’ve aptly pointed out a number of times, aren’t really motives if not psychological—the non-consideration of intent and the non-acknowledgment that intent may be pathologically inspired are absurdly negligent.
The law, generally, proceeds from the presupposition that a crude set of rules can be cleanly (and justly) applied to any circumstance. With restraining orders, in particular, judicial faith is that rulings can be phoned in. Assertion suffices as prima facie evidence (good enough).
Your observation is very astute, I think. The personality-disordered don’t observe the expectations of social contracts except when they’re the beneficiaries.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 8, 2014
This is a good find, and I put it and a couple other pieces by Mr. Eddy on the Blogroll. There’s a book of his at my local library called Splitting that I’ve reserved, also (co-authored by writer Randi Kreger). Mr. Eddy is also quoted in the explication of DARVO by Dr. Palmatier that’s cited in this post.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 1, 2014
In many ways, the legal system is pseudoscience. I believe many judges and attorneys have a grasp of this. Some of them may join the legal profession hoping to find the Truth or get close to the Truth, so that the legal system can take measures against an individual. The legal system is, nonetheless, a social fiction. I have anarchist views, but I also have scientific views. And my scientific views pretty much say that the legal system is mundane.
With that said, I consider that individuals who turn to the legal system for guidance in their personal affairs, such as restraining orders, are going there because they cannot think for themselves. Some individuals might say that people show up in front of a judge, because they have been acting like juveniles or children. And then the patriarchal figure will give an opinion. A hard determinist may argue against the legal system. However, humans as social creatures tend to engage in social contract theory, which when broken, may bring individuals into the legal system. Thus, being in front of a judge is much like seeking an opinion or tattle-telling. When vindictively done out of malice with false allegations, it’s a completely different story: It’s a retaliation by the petitioner, which may be actionable with a counter-suit allowed by the patriarchal figure (judge).
Nonetheless, the legal system presents itself as a philosophical problem. Language does not represent reality, and I’m thinking that the owner of this blog understands that. Language acts a symbolic representation of reality but not fully capturing reality due to semantical limitations. Thus, all allegations are definitively false, as they can never capture reality. However, I am not sure many respondents are so philosophically rooted as to believe such things as Truth: For, an individual might have immediately committed perjury when asked, “Do you wear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” if but to not be thrown in jail in contempt of court for saying, “I don’t know the Truth.”
With that argument said, in a lot of ways, it’s the legal system that is defrauding the petitioner and the respondent.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 1, 2014
With my last statement in reference to the legal system defrauding both parties, even if one individual were to believe in the legal system without the philosophical backbone to understand that the legal system is an opinion rather than Truth, then that individual is being defrauded. In many ways, I can see how it would be difficult for two solipsists to hold a dating relationship with each one considering the other an *illusion* of reality.
In reference to blame-shifting, there is a lot to say about “blame.” As I’ve said in my earlier posts, there exists the concepts of actus reus and mens rea. However, the legal system likes to take into consideration the concepts of causality with a specific focus on proximate cause. In relation to proximate cause, the legal system, when not focusing on strict liability, is interested in mens rea. There exists the unfortunate aspect in civil law, whereby an individual may be considered a proximate cause, although not the proximate cause: This is similar to a wrongful conviction, as in criminal law.
However, in my study of law, I have found that many people hold a consequentialist/behaviorist view, whereby blame is attributed to those of whom an individual believes “caused” something to occur: Someone might blame an individual for wasting his or her time, which then led to a lack of sleep, which led to poor performance on some task. Although the poor performance may not be blamed on the individual, as it might be proven that it was the lack of sleep, it might be argued that the individual who wasted someone else’s time held the intent to harass, intent to defraud, or some other applicable civil or criminal action that was not directly related to the poor performance. Thus, it’s about blaming someone for the RIGHT THING: Blaming the individual for wasting time rather than the poor performance. Because blaming the individual for the poor performance would be irrational misplacement of blame.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 8, 2014
Only one party resents being defrauded, and that’s the “loser,” so complaints are easily discounted. I think I’ve known some married solipsists. Funny how disbelief in external reality doesn’t disincline solipsists from seeking command of an “audience”!
With respect to your last remark, look up the plaintiff who famously brought a restraining order against David Letterman for exactly these reasons (harassment, sleep deprivation, etc.). She believed the talk show host (among others) was sending her coded messages through his broadcasts. That didn’t in any way deter a judge from “determining” her allegations had merit. Her misplacement of blame was only recognized on appeal waged by multiple attorneys, who didn’t argue that she was mad, only that her allegations were “frivolous.”
LikeLike
Moderator
February 8, 2014
Restraining orders are absolutely abdications of responsibility—passing the buck. Contemplation of how many of these things are petitioned just so someone doesn’t have to make an uncomfortable phone call (“Brian, it’s over”) is truly sickening. It’s totally like a kid crying to mom or dad. Even judges acknowledge this. And a lot of times the crying amounts to “[s/he] hit me back first!” Which wouldn’t be a big deal if the social contract wasn’t to pretend that allegations made before judges are due the utmost seriousness (that is, that they’re to be treated as definitive). Judges—I just had such a judge—admit they act “paternally” yet disregard that the consequences of their actions are a lot graver than defendants’ being denied TV for a week. There’s a horrifying schism between what’s recognized unofficially and what’s recognized officially.
It’s funny that you’ve called law a pseudoscience, because my impression is that that’s how the law tends to view psychology, which may be a great deal more rigorous in its analyses and honest in its interpretations.
Have you seen the Rene Magritte painting: “This is not a pipe”? What you’ve pronounced is what first-year grad students in literary studies are introduced to, Saussure’s dictum: “The word is not the thing.” The value, for example, of literary writing is not that it nails the truth—in fact it recognizes itself as a lie—but rather that it evokes the truth (Elizabeth Bishop described poems as “imaginary gardens with real toads in them”).
Yes, that’s the conclusion you inevitably reach: law is not about truth; it’s about politics. “Truth” is what works (especially to preserve and protect the interests of the politically favored).
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 10, 2014
I cannot recall what philosopher it was, perhaps it was Locke or someone, that referred to how a group in society makes its own laws. It’s similar to the golden rule: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. What I’m referring to, however, is how two individuals might undergo a social contract and say, “You can talk to me however you want. Just don’t physically harm me.” In other words, if you are to give a law onto yourself, then you are to give that law onto others. If you are ok with the idea of talking to people however you like, then you should not prosecute people for them talking to you how they like.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
February 10, 2014
Unfortunately, the legal system does not think the same way about such things.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 11, 2014
I can easily imagine a judge saying without a trace of irony, “I’m not paid to think.” In a very real sense, that judge wouldn’t be wrong.
LikeLike
Moderator
February 11, 2014
This is one of the major beefs reasoning people (including women) have with academic feminists (and have had for 20 years). They make pronouncements without inhibition, claim to invite dialogue, and brutally chasten dissenting views. Journalist Cathy Young reports in a piece about false allegations of rape: “In some instances of political correctness run amok at universities, students and professors have been accused of ‘harassment’ for so much as raising the possibility of false accusations in class or in online discussions.” Critics of the perspectives that emerge from “women’s studies” observe that impressionable students come to refer to ogles from men as “ocular rape,” in other words, sublimated violence. Mere behaviors become equated with “physical harm.” Not only are men not authorized to talk to women as women might talk to them; they’re equated with sex offenders for misdirecting their gaze (or being perceived as having inappropriately moved their eyes or necks).
LikeLike