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.

Domestic Violence Is Not a Political Tool

There is no question Australia needs to undergo a culture change in respect of the way it views and deals with Domestic and Family Violence. That includes media and political personnel. It is not something that is to be pursued only for political expedience. Using Domestic Violence as a political tool is appalling. It does nothing to help the victims or take the issue seriously.

Sadly the latest case to hit the limelight, that of Mr Billy Gordon, the newly elected Member for Cook in the Queensland Parliament, seems to have done so for reasons of political expedience, rather than for genuine interest in and concern for the issue of Domestic and Family Violence.

Saturday 7 September 2013
On Saturday 7 September 2013 at the Federal Election in the seat of Leichhardt, Liberal National Party (“LNP”) candidate Warren Entsch received 55.7% of the final vote and Australian Labor Party (“ALP”) candidate Billy Gordon received 44.3% of the final vote. Mr Warren Entsch was the re-elected Member for Leichhardt in the Federal Parliament with a 1.1% swing to the LNP.

Saturday 31 January 2015
On Saturday 31 January 2015 at the State election in the seat of Cook, Australian Labor Party (“ALP”) candidate Billy Gordon received 56.8% of the final vote and Liberal National Party (“LNP”) candidate David Kempton received 43.2% of the final vote. Mr Gordon was the newly elected Member for Cook in the Queensland Parliament with a 10.2% swing to the Australian Labor Party.

Also on Saturday 31 January 2015 at the State election in the seat of Cairns, ALP candidate Rob Pyne received 58.5% of the final vote and LNP candidate Gavin King received 41.5% of the final vote. Mr Pyne was the newly elected Member for Cairns in the Queensland Parliament with a 17.3% swing to the Australian Labor Party.

Early February 2015
In early February 2015 the former partner of Mr Gordon is said to have contacted the aforementioned Mr Warren Entsch and asked for help in recouping child support from Mr Gordon.

Friday 6 March 2015
The aforementioned Gavin King said he had been in discussions with the ex-partner of Mr Gordon in the three (3) weeks before the publication of the allegations on or about Friday 27 March 2015, i.e. roughly Friday 6 March 2015. Initially the main emphasis from Mr King of those allegations was on the alleged Domestic Violence.

Friday 13 March 2015
Mr Entsch contended that on Friday 13 March 2015 he received an email from the former partner of Mr Gordon which detailed her allegations. He further contended he did not consider the matter was something which required his immediate involvement.

Wednesday 18 March 2015
On Wednesday 18 March 2015 the Office of the Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk received a letter from the partner of Mr Billy Gordon “outlining a number of allegations against Mr Billy Gordon, the newly elected Member for Cook in the Queensland Parliament”.

Mr Evan Moorhead, State Secretary of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party advised the partner of Mr Billy Gordon to make a complaint about the alleged conduct to the Queensland Police Service.

It seems no Application under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 for a Domestic Violence Protection Order, either temporary or permanent, was or had been made at that stage.

Wednesday 25 March 2015
An email dated Wednesday 25 March 2015 was sent from Tarnya Smith MP to the spouse or partner of Billy Gordon in relation to her complaint of domestic abuse and failure to pay child support by Mr Gordon. The recommendation in that e-mail was for the partner of Mr Gordon to contact the police and make a complaint.

Observations

• A solicitor could also have made an Application for a Domestic Violence Protection Order in respect of the former partner of Mr Billy Gordon.
• Why did the former partner of Mr Billy Gordon not approach a solicitor or go to the police herself?
• The strong inference is that the allegations of domestic violence were not the most pressing issue for the former partner of Mr Gordon, but rather the unpaid child support was her main concern.

Friday 27 March 2015
By letter dated Friday 27 March 2015 from the Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to Ian Stewart, Commissioner of Police, the matter was referred to the Queensland Police Service:

• “For its consideration and investigation of the allegations as appropriate”; and
• “To investigate these matters to ascertain whether there is any evidence of the commission of criminal offences”.

Saturday 28 March 2015 2:24 pm
On Saturday 28 March 2015 at 2:24 pm Billy Gordon published a Statement on Facebook. Relevantly that statement revealed the following criminal history.

It is worth noting that Mr Gordon was born in 1973 and in Queensland criminal justice, a child is “a person who has not turned 17 years” (Section 4 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 Schedule 4 Dictionary).

Criminal History
“This contact has included being charged and convicted with:

[Child]

• Breaking entering and stealing in 1987 in Innisfail [Age 13]
• Breaking and entering with intent, attempted breaking and entering and stealing in 1990 in Atherton [Age 16]

[Adult]

• Breach of probation in 1992 in Atherton [Age 18/19]
• Public nuisance in 1996 in Normanton [Age 22/23] and
• Breach of bail conditions in 1999 (stemming from not attending a court summons from the 1996 incident). [Age 25/26]

In addition I have twice had my driver’s licence suspended for unlicensed driving (2004 [Age 30/31] and 2008 [Age 34/35]).

Finally, in 2008 I was served with an Apprehended Violence Order as a result of a complaint by my mother. [Age 34/35]

My mother at the time was concerned that I was going to return to a relationship with an ex-partner (we were at said ex-partner’s residence) and I asked her to leave in a manner that she found threatening. My mother has confirmed to me that there were no allegations of physical violence made with respect to this incident.

This AVO was never heard in court, and does not form part of my criminal record however I provide its details now for completeness.”

Sunday 29 March 2015
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk expelled MP for Cook, Billy Gordon, from the ALP and advised him to resign his seat in Parliament.

Issues
Many issues arise for consideration in this matter. Here are some of them.

1 Failure To Disclose Relevant Information
It is hard to understand why Mr Billy Gordon did not reveal his criminal history at the time he sought preselection for the ALP. Given the nature of politics, it is something he should have expected to be revealed in respect of him, if he was not prepared to reveal it himself. Failure to reveal his criminal history puts in question his honesty and his integrity.

Having said that the letter dated Tuesday 31 March 2015 from the Clerk of The Parliament to the Speaker, the Honourable Peter Wellington MP sets out the position clearly in terms of the legal obligation upon Mr Gordon to reveal his criminal history.
“In short, there appears, based on the limited information available, to have been no lawful obligation on Mr Gordon to disclose any of the matters relating to his criminal history.”

2 Failure On The Part of The ALP To Do Due Diligence On Their Candidate
There has been some discussion on social media about doing criminal history checks with the police for all candidates for political office. That raises some privacy issues, if the candidate does not consent. However if the candidate is obliged to consent to a criminal history check or not progress in the pre-selection process, that may resolve the difficulty.

Without the ability to do relevant external or third party checks, the pre-selection process seems to rely upon the honesty and integrity of the candidate.

In this particular case two (2) separate requests were apparently made of the Australian Federal Police to check the criminal history of Mr Gordon and on each occasion they revealed no relevant criminal history. That being the case the ALP had no better information to continue with its due diligence on its candidate, Mr Gordon, and no opportunity to consider whether the subject criminal history is something which is entitled to be revealed to the public.

3 Mr Billy Gordon Is Now a Member of Parliament
There having been no challenge to the lawfulness of his election, Mr Billy Gordon is now a Member of Parliament and is entitled to all the rights and privileges that go with it.

Once again referring to the letter dated Tuesday 31 March 2015 from the Clerk of The Parliament to the Speaker, the Honourable Peter Wellington MP:
“... a person is not qualified to be a member if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period o f one year, no less than two years prior to being a candidate. 

“This ground of qualification does not appear to be an issue in the context of Mr Gordon. There is no suggestion that within 2 years before the day of nomination, Mr Gordon has been convicted of an offence against the law of Queensland, another State or the Commonwealth and sentenced to more than 1 year’s imprisonment.”

...

“In short, a member is only disqualified if they are convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more or convicted of certain enumerated offences (corruption, electoral corruption, treason etc.).

“As outlined earlier the material provided to you makes allegations against Mr Gordon (assault and deprivation of liberty) in respect of which if he was convicted, he may be sentenced to a period of imprisonment exceeding one year. If this was the case he would be disqualified under the provisions of the POQ Act. However, Mr Gordon is entitled to the presumption of innocence and until such time as he is convicted and sentenced of any offence that satisfies s.72, he is not disqualified from being a member.”

4 Mr Billy Gordon Has The Rights of All Accused in Queensland
Mr Billy Gordon is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial according to law in respect of any criminal offences he may have allegedly committed.

If an application under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 for a Domestic Violence Protection Order was made in respect of him, under s51 Mr Gordon may be entitled to consent to an order being made in respect of him without admitting to any of the allegations the subject of the application.

5 Removing Billy Gordon From Office Would Need To Be In Accordance with The Law
It seems much of the discussion about this matter has really been about political expedience. The LNP seem to want to remove Mr Gordon from office because it believes so doing will enhance its chances of seizing political power in Queensland. Much of the media discussion has been about trying to shape how the political agenda will play out. The domestic violence case which is at the heart of this matter has been relegated to minor importance to facilitate this political posturing.

Despite what goes on in the minds of political expedients, the Rule of Law applies to Mr Gordon in this matter and he is entitled to all of the rights available to him under it. Any attempt to improperly or unlawfully remove him from office would more than likely enliven rights in him to challenge that removal in the Courts.

If the Billy Gordon case finds its way to the Supreme Court, the controversy raised by Justice Wilson about the Chief Justice and the Court of Disputed Returns comes very much into focus and the integrity of the Court will be relied upon to achieve the correct result according to law.

6 Disclosure of All Members of Parliament with a Criminal and / or Domestic Violence History Is Now a Live Issue
The pursuit for political expedience of a matter containing domestic and family violence allegations has lead us to an unfortunate position. That is the disclosure of all Members of Parliament with a criminal and / or domestic violence history is now a live issue.

Despite the enthusiasm for it by many people, my position remains the same: Do not sideline the Rule of Law for political expedience.

I made some observations on Twitter:

• Ask moralising Springborg if he is prepared to get Verity Barton to confess to her specific offences & accept the consequences?
• It suits the present political wishes of Springborg to do away with the presumption of innocence etc
• That has adverse consequences

The leader of the Opposition is now in an awkward position. His quest for political expedience would have him sacrifice the rights of his colleagues and party members in order for him to maintain a consistent position. It is not for him to sacrifice their rights.

The rights those who seek political expedience seem to want to sacrifice in respect of Mr Gordon are rights they may wish to enjoy themselves in the future.

7 The Vote of Mr Gordon In The Parliament
The letter dated Tuesday 31 March 2015 from the Clerk of The Parliament to the Speaker, the Honourable Peter Wellington MP is again instructive:

“Neither the Speaker, party leader, nor the House itself can generally disallow Mr Gordon’s vote on any matter. The only legitimate grounds to disallow Mr Gordon’s vote is in the exceedingly rare circumstance of a vote on a matter in which a member has a direct pecuniary interest (SO 259). Impeding or attempting to impede a member or inappropriately influence a member’s vote may constitute a contempt.

“There has been considerable talk in recent days about whether parties should rely on Mr Gordon’s vote. Under current Standing Orders (see Chapter 19), any member in the Assembly when a vote takes place on a question, must vote with either the Ayes or the Noes. They cannot abstain on the floor of the Assembly. Members vote from their seat and the votes of cross bench members (which Mr Gordon now is) are not apparent to anyone until such time as the Clerk verbally advises the vote of those cross bench members to the Assembly. The votes of cross-bench members are recorded after the votes of the government and the opposition.

“In other words, it is not up to the discretion o f a party leader as to whether they are going to use Mr Gordon’s vote - Mr Gordon has a right to vote. Furthermore, party leaders would not necessarily know what the vote of Mr Gordon was until towards the conclusion of the division after party votes have already been recorded.”

Conclusion
The former partner of Mr Billy Gordon is entitled to better treatment than having her case utilised because someone thought it may facilitate some political expedience for them. Sacrificing the rights of Mr Gordon for that same political expedience is also unhelpful, unproductive and unwise.

To the extent that her case is really about the payment of outstanding child support, the former partner of Mr Billy Gordon is more likely to receive that child support if Mr Gordon remains a Member of Parliament. The machinations undertaken by the LNP using her case to have Mr Gordon removed from Parliament, so there can be another election in Cook and the LNP might win that election and then be able to form government, is not an outcome which would provide the former partner of Mr Gordon with much satisfaction.

The much needed culture change in respect of the way Australia views and deals with Domestic and Family Violence is unlikely to occur whilst cases are used for purposes of political expedience. It is time leadership is shown by both politicians and those in the media to give this issue the significance and respect it deserves.

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.