There are many reasons why one or both of the former spouses, partners or separated co-parents, may accuse the other of being narcissistic or suffering from NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).  These include:

• The fact that, statistically, personality disorders are found in the family and criminal justice systems at a higher rate than in general society. This is because the characteristics or symptomology of such disorders (and, indeed, mental health conditions, in general), such as a lack of empathy and insight, difficulties in taking accountability/responsibility (blaming the other party) and impulsivity, negatively impact relationships and the ability to resolve disputes.

• The vast majority of family law clients will not have any formal training or experience in mental health and, therefore, inadvertently weaponise blame and conflict by accusing the other of having “narcissism”. This weaponisation of blame has a variety of purposes and objectives for the individual who is pathologising blame in this way, even though they are not aware of it.

• “A bad case of conflict can look like mental health” - in particular, narcissism/NPD (and autism), due to the lack of insight, black-and-white thinking, empathy et cetera.

• Many family law professionals, seeking to market their practice, either through books or their websites, claim to know how to divorce a narcissiste. deal with narcissism/NPD, in the process of divorce and/or children/family litigation.

• Society, as a whole, is becoming more aware of mental health issues, such that narcissism is the present day “go to” mental health accusation of choice, in the same way that neuroticism was in the 1970s. “Dr Google” will even give you a return on the connection between narcissism/NPD and nosebleeds!

In determining whether there is narcissism/NPD in a family law case, understanding it, knowing how to deal with, and prove it, in the context of any particular case and decide whether the appointment of a court-appointed mental health professional should be pursued (and whether that should be an adult psychiatrist or psychologist), the following should be taken into account (in no particular order):

• Be very wary of any firm of solicitors who claim that they know how to deal with narcissism or how to divorce a narcissist, as the clue is on the tin. NPD is a disorder and, therefore, there is no order or logic to the decision-making and behaviour of the individual, except in terms of the validation of their “false persona”. Indeed, the mixture of “ordered” legal professionals seeking to understand disordered thinking, is a recipe for confusion and upset in that legal professional.

• Unless a firm of solicitors has expertise in both mental health and communication and conflict resolution (as we do), it is not possible to understand, in the absence of any diagnosis, whether it is an issue of mental health or conflict and where the boundary should be drawn in any litigation strategy. One has to know, not only the diagnostic criterion of NPD but also how it expresses itself, by reference to the facts of the case and the behaviour of the sufferer. In the early stages of the case, this may only be discernible, if there is an understanding of the difference between conflict and abuse (on the one hand) and a mental health problem (on the other).  This is very important because a decision has to be made how to run the case by the time court applications are filed or, at the very latest, the first directions hearing, FHDRA.

• Even if there is a diagnosis of NPD, that does not mean that it should be relied upon without protective strategies. Mental health fluctuates over time. People are more than their mental health.  It may be that the NPD is not as destructive as the underlying conflict which would exist, in any event. Ultimately, any mental health diagnosis is for the purposes of considering treatment options, only. 

• In particular, mental health professionals, including court-appointed adult psychiatrists and psychologists (there is a very important difference between the two) will not see this pernicious and, deeply life limiting, diagnosis, in the same unsympathetic way that the accuser may. Instead, such professionals may believe that the answer is for the family to be supported and educated, not for the sufferer to be punished. Mental health professionals are also unlikely to view the mental health condition as pessimistically and negatively as their accuser, as it would involve them admitting that, notwithstanding all of their years of training and experience, they cannot do anything for the sufferer. 

• This cultural difference between legal and care professionals and the lack of understanding in the family justice system of NPD, often explains why the sufferer of NPD can so easily project their negative qualities onto the other spouse/partner/coparent e.g. a lack of empathy and behaving in a controlling way. Many family law litigants, who are in conflict with the other side who has narcissism/NPD, complain that the narcissist is projecting their characteristics onto them and making them appear to be the one with the mental health problem. Indeed, one has to be very careful in accusing the other side of having narcissism/NPD or, indeed, any other mental health problem.  It will result in a spotlight being turned on the accuser as well e.g if things were so bad, why did you not ask for help prior to the conflict.  Further, as a matter of fact, if an individual has been living with someone with a mental health problem, particularly in an environment of high conflict, it is likely that they would, also, have developed mental health symptomology, to a greater or lesser degree e.g. anxiety or depression.  This is something which has to be factored into any litigation strategy.

• This lack of understanding in the family justice system, may also lead to the case going down the expensive and delaying fact-finding route, rather than the mental health route. This is because legal professionals and the courts understand facts and seek to prove them in an adversarial way, rather than seeing those facts as mental health symptomology. Alternatively, it may focus on the mental health issue, appropriately treating it as a welfare issue, whilst forgetting that there is another welfare issue, conflict, which is equally damaging to the family and, which it cannot do anything about. 

• In order to get the best from any court-appointed mental health professional, family law solicitors have to be able to speak their language, in terms of drafting the letter of engagement, formulating written questions and briefing the barrister with cross examination questions. In order to get the best from any court-appointed expert, one has to know as much as they do about the diagnosis and the impact of it, otherwise you are entrusting them to deliver the information you require for the case. With that knowledge of mental health and conflict (and, equally importantly, where the boundary between the two begins and ends), one can “steer” mental health professionals to validate and corroborate the mental health and other non-legal issues in the case or undermine any mental health professional who may “go rogue”.  After all, court-appointed mental health professionals
• are not immune from the feelings of fear/emotional terrorism which those with NPD/narcissism display where they are in conflict;
• may not want to diagnose NPD because, after all, what is the point as the individual will not, in all probability, seek any therapeutic help and will simply become another target;
• may not have a great deal of experience with sufferers of NPD. Sufferers very rarely seek mental health treatment for a number of reasons. Seeking treatment is inconsistent with the “false persona” they project into the outside world, in response to the vulnerabilities on which their “true persona” is based.  Accordingly, if they do seek treatment, if challenged, they may react negatively and stop therapy (commentators often refer to any such challenge resulting in “narcissistic rage”).  If the sufferer is aligned with (which is part of the therapeutic process), it runs the risk of validating their false persona, leading them to believe there is nothing wrong with them and also stopping therapy;
• limited by their own skill set, standards of professionalism or fee caps, court-appointed mental health professionals may either not read or fully considered all the implications of the other evidence and reports in the case.

• The court does not integrate with therapeutic processes very effectively. Often, it will only be at the end of a legal case, where a psychiatric/psychological problem is detected or a legal solution acknowledged to be incapable of resolving repeated litigation, that the courts advocate a therapeutic solution. Then, it may be tempted to kick the problem into the long grass by “sending” the individual to therapy but due to a belief that the therapy is confidential, fail to continue to supervise the family through continuing litigation.  Alternatively, any therapeutic solution for the family, to serve any positive purpose for the family may be too late due to the amount of conflict that the litigation has created. 

• Putting mental health cases through the family justice system should be a last resort. At the very least, the escalation in conflict and stress of the litigation will exacerbate the mental health problem and its symptomology. The court, Cafcass, and social services may not have the expertise required to fully understand the problem, which only increases the conflict, thereby masking, the mental health problem.  Ultimately, the best outcome may simply be for the family to be supported by a variety professionals and the court for as long as possible, which is a pipe dream in this day and age of scarce financial resources, and the court’s preference to end the litigation rather than increase the burden on the family justice system by having periodic review hearings.

Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors is a collaboration between Richard Gregorian, family lawyer and Gavin Emerson, therapist and conflict resolution expert.  We are able to advise and represent family law clients in a way that no other law firm can.  From the very first meeting to dealing with court-appointed mental health experts, our clients’ cases benefit from being considered through the prism of this combined skill set. 

Our combined skill set enables us to formulate and implement strategies to maximise agreement or better articulate your litigation case (regardless of whether your ex-partner or you may have mental health challenges) which find favour with the courts and non-legal professionals, such as Cafcass and social services, as well as court-appointed mental health professionals.  In the latter case, this is because they do not believe that mental health should be dealt with by an adversarial and blaming system of justice, which is an anathema to them, as care professionals.

Richard Gregorian, Principal of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors- a firm unique in having fully integrated in-house conflict resolution and mental health expertise (https://www.gelaw.co.uk/).