High Conflict Custody Dispute versus High Conflict Personality:

The courts generally recognize what is called a “high conflict custody dispute,” but in general lacks the lens it would need to identify a custody dispute involving a high conflict personality.

Thus, courts typically operate from the premise, which is generally true, that “it takes two to tango.”

When the legal system holds that both sides are equally responsible for conflict and fails to recognize when high conflict individuals are involved, justice and conflict resolution are impeded.

While it is possible for two high conflict people to marry and divorce this is not a typical dynamic.

A person with high conflict behaviors increases conflict rather than reducing or resolving it and interrupts problem solving. They blame others, exhibit all or nothing thinking and have unmanaged emotions and extreme behaviors. They may spread rumors or lies, obsessively contact their ex,  and persist in efforts to control or dominate.  

Need for Strategy

If a lawyer, judge, mediator or therapist can be aware that the situation involves a high conflict individual, they can proactively set a strategy, which is particularly important where children are involved. Evidence may  include but is not limited to:  a  persistent pattern of  hostile communication and patterns of blaming, police contact,  failure of mediation, violations of boundaries and court orders, disruption of the visitation schedule, or engaging in acts that place children in the middle.

Blaming the Victim

When the courts— lawyers, judges and other legal and court agents—consider both sides equally responsible for the conflict, they presume that both parties are “people  who can’t set aside their hurt feelings to just  cooperate and  put their  children’s needs first.”

Since the fundamental nature of a high conflict individual is to not cooperate, and instead to challenge expectations and escalate conflict, mediators, lawyers and judges  do not understand why cooperation and compromise doesn’t just “happen.”

Oftentimes, when there is a divorce from a high conflict individual, there has been a history of domestic violence and identifying the divorce or custody battle itself as “high conflict” can mask the DV history. This is particularly problematic when the abuse has been non-physical and has involved coercive control which may have included incessant verbal abuse and threats, stalking/cyber-stalking, withholding and controlling financial resources and a general sense of intrusion that’s psychologically destabilizing.  When the victim has been beaten down such that they can endure no more and decides to leave, they are then thrust into a legal system that tells them that they are half of the problem.  The victim, now attempting to protect their children and move into a survivor role, is told that they are failing to co-parent, failing to put their children’s needs first, and are putting their children in the middle by allowing the conflict to continue.

The Double Bind

When the survivor attempts to describe the situation, they are in a double-bind. If they are emotionally unstable/traumatized/reactive, then they are considered a liability for parenting their children. If the survivor is emotionally functional, then the abuse couldn’t have been that bad, and likely did not occur at all. The survivor’s credibility is further undermined if the ex has charisma, charm, and “flying monkeys” around who give the illusion of the “wonderful and impressive” person.  

What’s true is that with a high conflict individual in the mix, conflict will ebb and flow, but it will never stop. The law often fails to recognize when a person is dancing by themselves, and when the high conflict individual is acknowledged, the law is not well-equipped to stop the music.

Divorcing a high conflict individual can lead us to feel more powerless and out of control, more judged and misunderstood.