Wilful Blindness Is Not The Solution

Nervous Breakdown
Several years ago I visited a friend, she had a female guest there also, a happily married mother. What started out as a pleasant afternoon, became serious rather quickly when the female guest had a minor nervous breakdown. In the following weeks her condition deteriorated and the consequences escalated, such that an unpleasant scene she subsequently created at the business she ran lead to her being forced to spend some time involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital for treatment for her condition. The change in the health of the mother had a drastic impact upon her family, including her primary-school-aged children.

Prior to the episode at her work it was clear that the mother should seek professional medical and mental health assistance. Her behaviour enlivened the possibility that she be asked to submit to a non-urgent mental health assessment via a Justices Examination Order (JEO). Such an Order is issued by a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace (JP) and would involve the mother submitting to an examination by a doctor or authorised mental health practitioner. Any person can make an application for a JEO, including a relative of the person to be assessed. I have seen a JEO used in greater family law proceedings. I suggested to my friend it is something the husband / father might seriously consider in the circumstances, were he truly concerned about the welfare of his children.

Once the episode at the work of the mother occurred that decision was taken out of the hands of the husband / father and the benefits of an early intervention were lost.

Manipulative False Suicidal Ideation Claim
In light of that nervous breakdown situation, consider someone who makes a manipulative false suicidal ideation claim. They have evidenced their bullying, emotional blackmail and emotional abuse to maintain adherence to their narrative and / or control the amount of attention they get. It is also possibly evidence of self-destructive behaviour on the part of the author of the false claim.

The maker of the false claim is responsible for these developments, which are a consequence of decisions they made voluntarily. There is now good evidence to support the contention that the person who made the false claim should seek professional medical and mental health assistance. It can be evidence of Borderline Personality Disorder. Their role with their employer is also entitled to be reviewed. In that regard someone who makes a manipulative false suicidal ideation claim is not someone who should be lecturing at health conferences.

Consider the implications if the person who made the manipulative false suicidal ideation claim also has the role of the primary carer of the children of the relationship. It was the mother who had the nervous breakdown I mentioned earlier.

In Jackson & Macek [2015] FCCA 1656 Meyers J said at paragraph [37]:
“The Court must consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. It is a paramount consideration with primacy over all others, and it is a consideration the Court gives greatest weight of those condensations at s.60CC [of the Family Law Act 1975] when determining what is in the best interests of the child.”

Relevantly here:

• The suicidal ideation of the mother puts in question her mental health
• Does the mental health of the mother pose a risk to the children, in that the children will suffer physical or psychological harm from coming into contact with the mother or spending time or living with the mother?
• Will the mother abuse the children or neglect the children or subject the children to family violence as a result?

(See Jackson & Macek [2015] FCCA 1656 per Meyers J at paragraph [45])

In Hunter & Morrison (contravention) [2014] FamCA 198 the mother made statements about her alleged suicidal tendencies to and in the presence of the children (per Tree J at para [28]). The emergence of the alleged suicidal ideation of the mother caused the father to reconsider the safety of the children (See para [57])

The question then arose:

• Did the mother present a physical and emotional risk to the children by virtue of her alleged suicidal ideation? (See para [33])

The Court found that:

• “it was reasonable for the father to seek clarification of the opinion of the treating psychologist of the mother specifically in relation to the prospect of the mother experiencing and, if she experienced, entertaining, suicidal ideation whilst having the children in her care” (See para [52])
• “the father believed that it was necessary to withhold the children from their holiday contact with the mother in order to protect them from risk of harm, should she experience or entertain or act upon suicidal ideation whilst the children were in her care” (See para [55])
• the belief of the father was based on reasonable grounds (See para [55])

The consequences that flowed from confronting the reality of the condition of the mother who was the friend of my friend were profound, both for the mother and her family. Early or earlier intervention may have provided a less profound impact upon those involved.

Ignoring the reality of what making the manipulative false suicidal ideation claim evidenced will not make it go away. Denying the benefits early intervention can bring to the situation reduces the treatment and management options for the entire situation.

Whilst the maker of the manipulative false suicidal ideation claim may revel in their success after seemingly achieving their attention-seeking or narrative controlling goal, the reality of their condition and disposition will not go away. The need for professional medical and mental health assistance will continue and by ignoring early intervention, the available treatment options are reduced.

Other consequences flow from making the suicide threat. Where there are children involved in the relationship, the person making the suicide threat should expect that threat to be the subject of a Child Concern Report with the Department of Children’s Services. It is conceivable that the parent not making the threat may then be fearful for the safety of the children  and concerned about the ongoing mental health of the parent who made the threat. Consequently the parent not making the threat may require that time spent with the children by the parent who made the threat be supervised by a responsible adult.

Whatever was the personal situation of the maker of the manipulative false suicidal ideation claim before it was made, it changed upon their voluntary act of making the claim. That act opened the door to scrutiny of their circumstances and if such scrutiny is not welcome in the life of the author, perhaps that is something which should have been considered before the claim was made. They have exposed their condition and their circumstances. Wilful blindness to the implications of that exposure is not the solution.

Reconciliation Requires Humility, Sincerity, Remorse and Contrition

In the movie Notting Hill (1999) the character played by Julia Roberts attends the bookshop where the character played by Hugh Grant works. She wants to resume their romantic relationship. Her request is resplendent with humility and sincerity. At its height she says,
“And don’t forget, I'm just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.”

The response of the Hugh Grant character is sensible in terms of protecting himself and based on a realistic assessment of their lives together and apart to that point. In a very pleasant conversation, he declines her request. The Julia Roberts character leaves his bookshop and goes about her business.

The Hugh Grant character reflects upon his decision to decline to resume the romantic relationship with the Julia Roberts character and realises he has made a mistake. Subsequently an opportunity presents itself for both of them to be at the same place at the same time. The Hugh Grant character seizes that opportunity and conveys to the Julia Roberts character his enthusiasm to resume their romantic relationship. His plea to the Julia Roberts character was also resplendent with humility and sincerity. Ultimately it was successful and their romantic relationship was resumed.

An Abstract Question
Shortly after I watched that movie a friend asked me an abstract question: Would I entertain a conversation from a specific former girlfriend with a view to reconciling our relationship? A lengthy conversations ensued.

I have long contended that we live in a world where people (wrongly) think it is acceptable to lie and that no adverse consequences flow from that dishonesty. That contention was put to the test rather promptly.

My friend knew a fair bit of the history and circumstances of the woman the subject of the abstract question. The woman in question had deliberately sabotaged a good relationship to pursue other relationships with other men. Her dishonesty increased markedly once she had established her relationship with one of the men. She was actively pursuing a new life and strategic friendships she had made were paying dividends for her. Flaunting her new life and her new men was a part of her strategy. She was also carefully crafting her narrative and her relationship with me was not a constituent part of that narrative. By her words and her actions, she had made it abundantly clear that I no longer served any useful purpose in her life.

I have written previously about credibility and I said independent corroboration of the contention the person with the shattered credibility seeks to make may be required in future before some people are prepared to accept that contention. As they made their aforementioned respective pleas for reconciliation, the characters of both Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant could be seen to be demonstrating humility, sincerity, remorse and contrition. It gave their pleas the necessary quality of integrity.

I told my friend who posed the abstract reconciliation question to me that I would be prepared to make the following concessions:
I would give the woman in question credit for:

• The telephone call to request meet to apologise and resume our relationship
• Getting on a plane and travelling to Brisbane
• Arranging a hotel room to have the subject discussion

Thereafter things got very difficult. The logistics of the actual meeting were then discussed. Was it a hotel where security required meeting in the foyer or could the guest proceed straight to the room? There were strengths and weaknesses in both options.

Once entry to the hotel room had been achieved the complexity of the situation became clear.

My friend and I agreed that the subject conversation could only take place without there being any interruptions by computers, telephones, television or radio. Towards the end of our relationship the woman in question had become quite fond of utilising her mobile telephone and / or her computer whilst in my company, often to contact other people. My many requests for her to not do so were all ignored. It was one of the strategies she used to sabotage the relationship.

My friend contended that once I saw the woman in question my resistance would disappear. I assured my friend that any currency the woman in question may have had in respect of her physical appearance had been spent by her appalling behaviour and her significant dishonesty. Whilst the new life the woman in question worked so assiduously to create at the end of our relationship may have suited her purpose at that time, it did nothing to endear her to me. She has a significant history of not keeping her commitments to me and I have no interest in experiencing any more of her considerable nastiness. In fact what she had achieved was a situation where I do not know what part of the history she told me was true and what part was false. She was now in a position where I would not be inclined to believe a word she said without independent corroboration.

Reflection
In the end I could not give my friend a specific answer as to what would be required to achieve the specific reconciliation she proposed in her abstract question. Whatever the woman in question said and did during that hypothetical meeting to discuss reconciliation, she would be required to demonstrate significant convincing humility, sincerity, remorse and contrition. Her plea would need to be resplendent with integrity. Then and only then might the proposed reconciliation be possible.

Whether by accident or design the Notting Hill movie had provided a rather insightful example of the reconciliation request and what one needed to do to successfully negotiate the exercise.

Insofar as the woman the subject of the abstract question is concerned, I have no realistic expectation that I will ever test my theory with her.

The Narcissist Cries Wolf

In The Windmills of Your Mind I spoke of:

• Providing assistance or support for someone in need involves doing what needs to be done from the point of view of the patient or client
• Services that are not available when needed can have devastating, perhaps even catastrophic consequences for the person seeking assistance
• Recommending that a client or a patient seek assistance or treatment from someone who in the end renders no productive assistance can be deflating and at times even destructive
• All parties must relevantly and appropriately invest in the relationship of trust
• If no productive advice or assistance is forthcoming, the patient or client can be discouraged from being so forthcoming in the future. That can have a detrimental effect on their motivation to seek advice or assistance in the future.

False Claims of Suicidal Ideation
Helpers are discouraged from rendering assistance where there are false claims of suicidal ideation.

In the case to which I will refer in this post, I had significant doubts as to the credibility of the narcissistic person in question (“the Narcissist”) on some matters I considered relevant to their circumstances. In my view, full disclosure was not one of their strengths.

The Narcissist had formed a view about something. I did not share their view.

On the day in question I received several text messages from the Narcissist using their work mobile telephone. The last message was the one which concerned me the most. I did not reply to it and I have had no further contact with the Narcissist since receiving that message.

The subject message contained suicidal ideation. Relevantly it read: "I feel like killing myself today."

Later that day the Narcissist was visible elsewhere and was seemingly in good spirits. In subsequent appearances the Narcissist continued to seem in good spirits, in fact they seemed to be revelling in the new circumstances they had created for themself.

The reference in the subject text message to suicidal ideation was something that concerned and upset me.  It was not the first time the Narcissist had raised suicidal ideation as a topic. It had been raised on at least one (1) prior occasion by them and there were at least two (2) hysterical telephone calls, which were a complete overreaction to the situation which presented itself at the relevant times. I was aware that there were significant developments in the life of the Narcissist at the time which placed them under much more pressure than would ordinarily be the case.

I was in the company of another adult when I received the message and we had a discussion about it shortly afterwards. I did not consider that the Narcissist was doing anything more than trying to manipulate me, bully me and guilt me into behaving in a way consistent with their wishes.

I found it disturbing that the Narcissist had easy access to many qualified medical practitioners, including psychiatrists, psychologists and general practitioners, yet chose to communicate their difficulties in the way they did. Eight (8) months earlier the Narcissist was able to access a psychiatrist from their work to engage in a public activity with them for a purpose which suited their agenda. Apparently the Narcissist did not consult any of their work colleagues, nor did they consult any of their friends or family about their situation on the day they sent the manipulative, false suicidal ideation claim message to me. In respect of that message, the Narcissist knew or would be expected to know:

• The policy of their employer about suicide threat risk; and
• The consequences of an expression of suicidal ideation.

The Narcissist communicated the message to me on their work mobile telephone, in my view thereby compromising not only themself, but also their employer.

Once the message was received by me it enlivened several issues:

• The mental stability of the Narcissist
• What impact did the new circumstances in which the Narcissist found themself have upon them?
• I had noticed a marked change in the behaviour of the Narcissist in relatively recent times
• The level of dishonesty of the Narcissist had increased measurably
• The extent, if any, that the message I received might be indicative of the Narcissist experiencing genuine mental health issues
• There is a theory that someone who makes manipulative suicide threats is someone who needs immediate professional attention
• To what extent am I obliged to raise my concerns with the Narcissist?

I was also annoyed that the Narcissist would resort to sending me a text message indicating suicidal ideation on their part in their campaign to manipulate and control what I say and do in relation to them. The selfish attention-seeking of the Narcissist is bereft of integrity.

Result
In their article “Suicide Risk Assessment: Where Are We Now? - A definitive way to identify patients who will suicide remains elusive”, Christopher J Ryan ^{1 2} and Matthew M Large ^{3 4} said the following:

• "Suicidal ideation, for example, is not useful as an indicator of the likelihood of future suicide, but it is an invaluable sign of a person’s inner despair."
• “We cannot prevent tragedy by trying to identify those few souls who will be consumed by it. We must instead gather a comprehensive picture of each individual patient, and use this to tailor optimal management for the patients and families needing our care.”

Observations
Some observations from a friend about making a false claim of suicidal ideation are instructive:

• It is manipulation at it's worst.
• Anyone who has ever been touched by suicide would be mortified that someone would use those words to make another person feel bad.
• Someone making such a false statement has no respect for people that are truly suffering.

Making a false claim of suicidal ideation is a far from ideal way to communicate one’s inner despair. Using it as a manipulation tool to achieve an ulterior purpose is appalling behaviour and a form of emotional blackmail and emotional abuse. It detracts from and devalues people who make a genuine cry for help. Further it can discourage people from responding and rendering assistance to those who really are suicidal.

Nothing positive is achieved by making a false claim of suicidal ideation.

---

1 (MB BS, MHL, FRANZCP, Senior Clinical Lecturer)^↩
2 Discipline of Psychiatry and the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.^↩
3 (BSc(Med), MB BS, FRANZCP, Senior Clinical Lecturer)^↩
4 School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.^↩

Blinded By The Light

Might Get Fooled Again
As I reflected upon my To Thine Own Self Be True piece I recalled a female client, who had separated from the father of their child and formed a romantic relationship with a new man. She saw fit to relocate from the father of the child and do so in circumstances that incurred the wrath of the Federal Magistrate hearing the trial. It was not surprising to hear the mother list a number of complaints of the personality and make up of the father. That is often standard fare in these matters.

What was of more interest to me was that the new man in her life was essentially a carbon copy of the man he replaced, with the exception that he appeared to be a nicer, more considerate version. However the writing was on the wall that the mother was in for a similar future with the new man to that she had with the former partner, if the new man did not maintain his considerate disposition. He was a man without any legal training whatsoever, but that did not stop him from informing my solicitor and I that he could give crucial evidence at the trial and it was evidence that would definitely support the case of the mother.

He was utterly wrong in that assessment, but that was not something which occurred to him. I politely told him the case did not need the benefit of his evidence and insofar as the case is concerned, that is where the matter ended. However as to my overall view of the case, his controlling and overbearing personality was of some concern to me. The mother may very well have been making the same mistake the second time as she made the first time and that may not be a good outcome for the children of the relationships.

Starstruck
Rarely are litigants attuned to the nuances of cross-examination. They often need to learn that the answers they give to questions posed to them can reveal aspects of them and their lives that they would rather not reveal. The answers given and the revelations made in relation to one line of enquiry can end up supporting another, seemingly unrelated, line of enquiry.

More recently a mother consulted me for advice. There was clearly a new man in her life, although she refused to characterise him as her lover. She certainly refused to make a public declaration that she and the new man were in a romantic relationship. Nevertheless her answers and behaviour revealed the strong influence on her life that this new man was achieving. From the information the mother provided it could be clearly seen that the new man was a vain, self-promoter, who was primarily interested in his own advancement in life. Others were merely an adjunct to it and to him. He had plenty of opinions and he was keen to share them. In so doing the ultimate cause he promoted was to make himself the centre of attention.

In conversation with the mother I often heard her reveal details of her interaction with the new man. The impact he had had upon her life was significant, perhaps even profound. Although it is difficult to say that such impact was ultimately positive. The effect of that impact was something she appeared to have significantly undervalued as a relevant issue.

Whilst possessed of many opinions and not being shy about sharing them, his knowledge was deficient in terms of preparing and presenting family law litigation successfully to courts.  It was not surprising to hear the mother reveal that in conversation with the new man, he was highly critical of me and the advice I had provided her. It was sad to see the extent to which she was starstruck by him. Taking his advice over mine was not going to enhance her litigation position. In fact, it was going to harm it. Ultimately, all he cared about was himself.

What was missing from their interaction was a dispassionate view of their relationship and its impact. The new man lacked the legal knowledge, skills and acumen required to enable the mother to properly advance her litigation and make fully informed decisions in respect of it. That obvious deficiency on his part was manifested acutely when the mother continued to consult me for legal advice. Legal advice the mother could not obtain anywhere else, due to the unique knowledge and skill she acknowledged that I possessed.

His actions highlighted his insecurity and brittle self-confidence. Objectively assessing the actions of the mother, she had replaced one poor choice for a partner with another. Using history as a guide, the future of the new relationship is in real danger of traversing the same path as the old relationship. That is hardly likely to be comforting for the children of her relationships.

The Impact of The Seduction
Those men do not act in the best interests of the children or anyone else, they act in their own best interests. Their charm offensive is invariably destructive for the women and often also for the children. That involvement with those men may lead to destructive or self-destructive behaviour on the part of the women is of little concern to them. It is their own power they wish to maintain. Their seduction of the women is based on maintaining their power.

As lawyers, we can advise these women, however they become very skilled at hearing only what they wish to hear and criticism of these men often falls on deaf ears. A different outcome might occur, if the criticism is able to be agitated within the litigation. However those men try to keep their bad qualities out of any relevant litigation, so that they are not the subject of any scrutiny. That includes manipulation of the relevant women to preclude any adverse comment about them.

Ultimately, as I said in naming my short stories blog, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

The Windmills of Your Mind

Time and again when I see and hear the outpouring of sadness and grief in response to the demise of a celebrity or public figure I see and hear an acknowledgement of the importance of being supportive of people in need. Each time it also strikes me how many people fail to realise the importance of providing support to people in need every day or at least when it is needed.  The provision of support needs to be focused on the recipient, not the provider.

Very early in my career as a lawyer it occurred to me that if I was to be effective, my clients needed to feel they could be completely candid with me as to how they got themselves into the situation in which they found themselves.  A failure to provide that candour would seriously enliven the possibility that I could not only not provide appropriate legal advice, but also we would not be best placed to respond to whatever it was that ultimately confronted the client.

The same can be said for anyone providing medical care of any sort. The patient or client needs to be able to be completely candid with the person providing care for any treatment proposed to be of any utility.

What has struck me often in life is the number of people who contend they are providing assistance or support, yet their involvement seems to be based on their own convenience.  The provision of assistance or support involves doing what needs to be done from the point of view of the patient or client, not what is convenient or easiest for the provider.

Contending that a service is available for someone in need, yet when that person in need seeks to utilise the relevant service they discover it is not available can have devastating, perhaps even catastrophic consequences for the person seeking assistance.

Similarly deflating and at times even destructive is recommending that a client or a patient seek assistance or treatment from someone who in the end renders no productive assistance. A constituent part of the relationship between the client or patient and the person providing assistance is a relationship of trust.  When a client or a patient shares their history with a view to receiving advice or assistance, they invest in that relationship of trust. If no productive advice or assistance is forthcoming, the patient or client can be discouraged from being so forthcoming in the future. That can have a detrimental effect on their motivation to seek advice or assistance in the future.

Sending an R U OK? text message is not providing real assistance, nor is posting support to social media. Ring people in need, talk to them, spend time with them. Encourage them to feel wanted and worthy. The rewards of so doing are witnessing their positive response and the engagement or interaction in the process.

To paraphrase Albert Camus: Don't walk behind them; they may not lead. Don't walk in front of them; they may not follow. Just walk beside them and be their friend.