DARVO Tactics in Family Law: How Abusers Manipulate the Legal System

There has been an alarming rise in abusive individuals using legal mechanisms to manipulate the narrative, silence their accusers, and reframe the dynamics of victimhood. A key tactic used by these individuals is DARVO – an acronym for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. This term, coined by psychologist Dr. Jennifer Freyd in the 1990s, describes a common tactic used by perpetrators of abuse when confronted with their actions.

What is DARVO?

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. The concept outlines a pattern of behavior used by individuals, particularly those accused of wrongdoing, to manipulate perceptions and deflect responsibility. Dr. Freyd developed this framework to explain how abusers avoid accountability by shifting the narrative in their favor. Here’s how it works:

1.      Deny: The perpetrator denies the wrongdoing or abusive behavior.

2.      Attack: The perpetrator attacks the victim’s credibility, often through personal attacks or questioning their motives.

3.      Reverse Victim and Offender: The perpetrator reverses the roles of victim and offender, portraying themselves as the victim and the actual victim as the offender.

DARVO in Family Law: The Case of K.M.N. v. S.Z.M., 2024 BCCA 70

A striking example of DARVO’s influence in legal proceedings can be found in the family law case K.M.N. v. S.Z.M (“KMN”). The BCCA decision in KMN is significant for its recognition of the myth and stereotype that women will routinely make false allegations of abuse to achieve an advantage in family law. In KMN, the appellant mother challenged a final parenting order that granted equal, unsupervised parenting time to the respondent father. The mother alleged that the trial judge failed to consider evidence of family violence, particularly the impact of the child’s exposure to violence directed to her. She also argued that the trial judge’s reasoning was tainted by myths and stereotypes, including the idea that women frequently fabricate family violence claims to gain an advantage in custody battles.

On appeal, the mother’s primary concern was that the judge’s treatment of her conduct as “weaponizing” claims of violence lacked support in the evidence and relied on these harmful stereotypes. She contended that this bias severely undermined her case. According to her, the judge failed to properly consider the credibility of her allegations in light of the context of intimate partner violence, and instead dismissed or diminished them based on unfounded assumptions.

The appeal judge found merit in the mother’s argument, recognizing that the trial judge had not adequately guarded against the risk of myths or stereotypes influencing the decision-making process. This includes the widespread and harmful myth that women often raise false allegations of violence in family litigation to gain an advantage. It was found that the trial judge committed a material error as he failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the allegations of family violence in accordance with s.37 and s.38 of the Family Law Act. Section 37(g) and 38(f) of the FLA make it clear that the child’s indirect exposure to physical and/or psychological abuse must be considered in this situation.

[1]Professor Koshan’s work, “The Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence,” supports the notion that such myths are deeply ingrained in the legal system. Koshan emphasizes that women who report family violence in legal contexts – whether to the police, in applications for protection orders, or in family court proceedings – are frequently met with skepticism and accused of fabricating the violence to manipulate the process. This creates a significant barrier to justice for survivors of intimate partner violence, particularly in the family law setting.

In KMN, Justice DeWitt-VanOosten identified the following myths and stereotypes in intimate partner violence in the family law context:

1.      Women fabricate allegations of family violence to gain an advantage in litigation (para 111);

2.      Credible women disclose violence early (para 121);

3.      Credible women would report the assault to the police (para 121);

4.      Credible women would leave the relationship (para 121);

5.      Violence against a woman by a man does not have an impact on the children and has nothing to do with his parenting ability (para 121);

6.      Women are just as guilty as men when it comes to intimate partner violence (para 121);

7.      Abuse stops once the relationship ends so there is no risk of future harm (para 121).

The appeal judge’s assessment highlighted that the trial judge’s reasoning was tainted by these stereotypes, thereby affecting his evaluation of the child’s best interests. The law is clear that courts must avoid making generalized or stereotypical assumptions about human behavior, especially in cases involving allegations of family violence. Judges must ensure that their decisions are based on reasoned fact finding rather than allowing myths about family violence to skew their judgment.

In this case, the father’s arguments aligned perfectly with the myth discussed by Professor Koshan. The father had reported the mother to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the police, yet argued that she was the one fabricating allegations of violence to gain an advantage in the legal proceedings. This theme was central to his case at trial and was reiterated on appeal. In his testimony, the father placed the blame on the mother for his arrests and criminal charges, despite the fact that those actions were outside of her control and depended on decisions made by independent third parties, like law enforcement and child protection authorities.

Given the father’s theory, it was essential for the trial judge to scrutinize the allegations of family violence carefully. If the judge was to give little or no weight to the mother’s evidence, this decision needed to be based on a thorough analysis of the specific incident in question, not on unfounded assumptions about the mother’s motivations. The judge’s failure to do so was a serious flaw in the trial.

The trial judge’s perpetuation of myths and stereotypes in S.Z.M. v. K.M.N., 2023 BCSC 940, plays a central role in the flawed decision-making process in this case:

1.      The trial judge downplayed a headbutting incident between the parties by referring to it as their foreheads merely “coming into contact.” He emphasized that no physical injury followed, thereby reducing the gravity of the violence (2023 BCSC 940 at para 7).

2.      The trial judge casted doubt on the mother’s testimony regarding bruising she observed on the child, suggesting that her claim was fabricated because no medical report corroborated the injury (2023 BCSC 940 at para 30).

3.      The trial judge assumed the mother’s reports to the police were false or being used as a “weapon” in the proceedings (2023 BCSC 940 at para 30), even though she followed the Crown’s advice.

4.      Despite clear risks associated with intimate partner violence, the trial judge assumed that shared parenting could be effectively managed through the use of a parenting coordinator, downplaying the potential for ongoing systems abuse or the financial burdens that would impose on the mother (BCCA at paras 130-131).

In KMN the appeal judge concluded that the trial judge’s failure to guard against these myths irreparably tainted his decision, and the mother’s case was unjustly dismissed as a result. A new trial was ordered to ensure that the parenting arrangements would be determined based on a proper assessment of the evidence, free from misconceptions about intimate partner violence. The appeal decision emphasizes that when family violence is alleged, judges must avoid letting stereotypes about false allegations influence their decisions. The best interests of the child must be determined without reference to myths about post-separation disclosure of abuse, ensuring a fair and impartial process moving forward.

The new trial in K.M.N. v. S.Z.M. is not expected to be heard until 2025 or 2026.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Ahluwalia[2] acknowledges that there are instances where claims of family violence may be made for strategic reasons. However, determining whether that is the case in any specific instance requires careful assessment of the credibility and reliability of the claims, and it is improper for a judge to start from an assumption that such claims are commonly fabricated.

If you have experienced intimate partner violence, please reach out to Illuma Family Law for a consultation.

[1] Jennifer Koshan, “The Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence” (8 November 2023), online: ABlawg, http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Blog_JK_RMD.pdf

[2] Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)