How Effective are Restraining Orders with an HCP?
©2017 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Question: Based on your experience and knowledge of BPDs and HCPs, how effective are ROs if one is filed and granted against a person with possible BPD or HCP traits? Do ROs stop these types of people who show signs of being BPD or HCP? I was just granted a RO but according to an article I read on HCP, I should never underestimate the behavior or actions of a BPD or HCP. I know about Betty Broderick so I’d like to know how common this behavior is after a RO is granted. Answer: Excellent question. HCPs in general and those with BPD have a hard time managing their emotions and their behavior. The success of the restraining order usually depends on which pattern of behavior the restraining order is intended to restrain. If it’s regarding a strong pattern of “coercive controlling violence,” which includes using violence to have power and control over the person, a restraining order on its own may have limited impact. It usually helps to have a “safety plan” so that you can protect yourself when you are concerned, such as places to go, people to be with, money to get you through. Betty Broderick had a severe borderline personality disorder (according to both the prosecution and defense at her trial), went to target practice and stalked her husband. He had a restraining order at some point, but it made little difference. If it’s what’s called “situational couple violence,” then the person is more likely to follow the RO, because this is more likely insufficient conflict resolution skills, so that the person pushes and shoves, rather than talking it out. After a separation, they mostly follow ROs and leave you alone in terms of safety. The third kind of violent or harassing behavior occurs around the time of separation. This is known as “separation-instigated violence,”and it usually involves one or two incidents, but stops once it’s clear that the separation is really going forward. A restraining order for this is usually followed as well. I hope that’s helpful. HCPs have a wide range of how severe their behavior can be. But they generally change very little, so that a concerning pattern of behavior will not necessarily stop just because there is a restraining order. Most communities have resources regarding restraining orders and domestic violence, so I encourage you to look into those. BILL EDDY, LCSW, ESQ. is the co-founder and chief innovation officer of the High Conflict Institute. He pioneered the High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP) and is viewed globally as the leading expert on managing disputes involving people with high conflict personalities. He is the author of 20+ books and has a popular podcast and a blog on Psychology Today.
Three Theories of the High-Conflict Legal Case
©2017 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. High conflict cases can be very confusing because it isn’t always clear which party is responsible for it becoming a high-conflict case. High-conflict cases increase the conflict, rather than decrease or resolve the conflict. In reality, it could be either party–or both! It is important to educate people involved in any high-conflict dispute to consider all three of these possibilities: Theory A: Person B says Person A is acting badly or may be an HCP. And it’s true. The person making allegations is correct: That the other person really is abusive or fraudulent. You have to consider that possibility. There is a lot of abusive and fraudulent behavior in the world today. Theory B: Person B says Person A is acting badly, but Person B is actually acting badly, not Person A. This is because Person B is “projecting” their own thoughts, feelings, or behavior onto Person A. Person B is acting badly and may be an HCP and Person A is not. Projection or “projective identification” are mental health terms that apply when a person says someone else is thinking something, feeling something or doing something that really describes the speaker rather than the other person. It is the speaker’s own thoughts, feelings or behavior being described, but the person truly does not realize it. This is an unconscious defense mechanism that is associated with mental disturbance and which seems to appear a lot in high-conflict legal disputes. Theory C: Both Person A and Person B are acting badly. Both may be HCPs. This can be true in high-conflict litigation. Maybe the first person is correct to say the second person is being abusive, ignorant, committing fraud and so forth. But maybe the person saying that is also being abusive, ignorant, committing fraud and so forth. When it comes to a legal case, the “winner-take-all” approach really is inappropriate for handling this problem, because both sides may not deserve to “win.” This is a serious problem in today’s legal system, because people who are acting badly are getting rewarded just because the other person is acting badly and got caught first or looks worse. On the surface, the facts in all three scenarios are the same. You have to look beneath the surface. It helps to educate legal professionals about these three possibilities, because many have their favorite theories and automatically assume it’s Person A or Person B or both, depending on the nature of the legal work that they do. If you are presenting your case in court, it may be helpful to explain why your case is one of these and not the other two possibilities. This is especially true in civil courts and family courts when dealing with relationship cases. For example, you might say: “You Honor, we recognize that most cases of this type have two parties who are both contributing to the conflict. However, in this case, one party is engaged in extreme behavior that needs the court’s strong intervention whereas the other party has been acting very appropriately and is not contributing to the problem but instead is a victim of the other’s extreme behavior. It is very important to recognize that, so that court orders can be implemented that address the real problem in this case.” This approach can be especially helpful if a judge or other decision-maker seems to have jumped to the conclusion that your case fits his or her favorite theory—and you believe they got it wrong. In that case, you can explain to the court: “It’s important to consider all three theories and here’s why this case fits a different theory from what has been already presented to the court.” Then present why it fits your theory and give supporting evidence, as well as why this case doesn’t fit the other two theories. With enough repetition, this can open the door to a more objective view of your case. BILL EDDY, LCSW, ESQ. is the co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California. He pioneered the High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP) and is viewed globally as the leading expert on managing disputes involving people with high-conflict personalities. He has written more than twenty books on the topic, developed methods for managing high-conflict disputes, and has taught professionals in the U.S. and more than ten countries. He is also co-host of the popular podcast, It’s All Your Fault, and writes a popular blog on Psychology Today.
If Empathy Is King, Are Boundaries It’s Queen With HCPs?
©2017 Megan Hunter, MBA In a previous article in which I crowned EMPATHY as king when dealing with high-conflict personalities—those folks who are the most toxic, the most difficult of difficult people—I asked for feedback from readers. You were kind with your comments and thoughtful with your suggestions. The comment that resonated the most was this: “… this [extending empathy] can only be done with professionals who understand the HCP personality of manipulation and game playing…” “… the HCP looks for and attaches themselves onto those who have lots of empathy…” “… if a person with lots of empathy does not understand the HCP’s goal of manipulation, they will become the next HCP’s victim and sink to the bottom with the HCP …” Spot on! Empathy alone is only the first step, the key that begins to unlock the HCP door. Without awareness of the full scope of HCP behavior along with one of the other vitals keys for managing it—settling limits—you have only part of the equation. As Bill Eddy explains in It’s All Your Fault! 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything (HCI Press, 2009) “setting limits is the most important and most difficult step in handling High Conflict People. HCPs generally have less self-control, are more impulsive, less aware of the impact of their behavior on others, and often don’t care if their behavior bothers or hurts themselves or anyone else.” Setting limits is difficult for all of us when dealing with HCPs. We’re used to walking on eggshells around them to avoid their wrath, accusations, and defensiveness. Many times we avoid them altogether or we do our best to help them only to pull our hair out in frustration. Either way, they don’t get the impact of limit setting, which they need—on steroids! Empaths love to help The danger is for those who are more empathic by nature and unaware of the need for assertive limit setting. These folks are more attractive to HCPs because, frankly, they’re vulnerable to the HCPs charm, emotional persuasion, crisis situations, and manipulation. A naturally empathic person is usually willing to listen, to give a helping hand, lend money, give rides, etc. It’s easy to get sucked in. An empathic person can find themselves working full-time for an HCP to solve all of his or her problems. But guess what? Somewhere along the line, you will find yourself as the Target of Blame. Conned at Church The first time Marissa visited one of the many groups at a church, she introduced herself explaining that she was single, currently unemployed after being laid off during the recession and was actively interviewing for new jobs in other states. After coming again the following week, she disappeared. The group speculated that she’d moved away for a job. Several months later an email went out to everyone who had ever attended the group, inviting them to a gathering at the home of one of the members. Although Marissa had been long forgotten, her was still on the list and RSVP’d for the gathering. Upon arrival, she presented the hostess with a beautifully wrapped gift and explained that she’d been diagnosed with cancer right around the time she’d visited the group a few months back, and had undergone surgery and chemotherapy since then. Naturally, the hostess (a fixer and natural empath) immediately expressed empathy asking why Marissa hadn’t let the group know so they could have helped her with meals, transportation, anything she needed. Thus began the several months-long manipulation of the group who raised thousands of dollars to help with rent, car payments, gas, medication, medical payments, expensive organic foods, repairs—anything she needed. Connections to job interviews were made. This group bent over backwards devoting 100% of their available time and resources to help her. Over those months, she dripped bits of information about her life that motivated and inspired action in this group that had set a goal for itself that year: loving others through helpful acts. Can you spell v-u-l-n-e-r-a-b-l-e? She not only claimed to have cancer, she also claimed with extraordinarily detail that: her husband had died of cancer a few months previously her sibling had been murdered within the past year she’d been orphaned as a child and had a horrifically abusive childhood she had no friends she’d sold almost all of her possessions she’d raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charities and was now penniless and nearly homeless she spent twelve hours every day researching jobs and going on interviews The most vulnerable members of the group were singled out by Marissa with special attention and gifts. They were the ones that ended up doing the most work on her behalf. In fact, one member commented that he felt like he’d gained a new full-time job worrying about her life and her livelihood. If gold stars were being passed out for following the Bible’s instruction to help the widows and the poor, this group received the max allotment. Eventually, conflicting stories and events began causing confusion in group members. Why, after raising thousands of dollars for necessary treatments, did she refuse rides to the treatment facilities? Why did the doctor take cash only? Hmmmm….. Lots of inconsistencies, but wait, what if she was being truthful? What if this was an extraordinary case? What if they didn’t help and something disastrous happened to her? What if she ended up homeless on the streets? Could they live with that? So they kept on giving . . . until one member became suspicious enough to do some background checking and discovered there was no cancer, no brother, no deceased husband. None of it was true. Even the job interviews they’d arranged were sabotaged by her. They’d been conned, and, they later discovered, other churches across the city had been manipulated by her game. What did this group miss? Why were they so vulnerable? Most were naturally empathic by nature They had a theme that year of loving others through helpful acts They had