Texas Supreme Court Denies Mandamus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
______________________________

No. 08-0391

______________________________

In re Texas Department of
Family and Protective Services, Relator

________________________________

On Petition for Mandamus

_______________________________

PER CURIAM


Justice O’Neill filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Johnson and Justice Willett joined.


The Yearning for Zion Ranch is a 1,700-acre complex near Eldorado, Texas, that is home to a large community associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. On March 29, 2008, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services received a telephone call reporting that a sixteen-year-old girl named Sarah was being physically and sexually abused at the Ranch. On April 3, about 9:00 p.m., Department investigators and law enforcement officials entered the Ranch, and throughout the night they interviewed adults and children and searched for documents. Concerned that the community had a culture of polygamy and of directing girls younger than eighteen to enter spiritual unions with older men and have children, the Department took possession of all 468 children at the Ranch without a court order .[1] The Department calls this “the largest child protection case documented in the history of the United States.” It never located the girl Sarah who was the subject of the March 29 call.
The Department then filed several suits affecting the parent-child relationship (“SAPCRs”)[2] requesting emergency orders removing the children from their parents and limiting the parents’ access to the children. The Department also requested appointment as temporary sole managing conservator of the children, genetic testing, and permanent relief. On April 17-18, the district court conducted the adversary hearing required by section 262.201(a) of the Texas Family Code.[3] Subsections (b) and (c) state in relevant part:

(b) At the conclusion of the full adversary hearing, the court shall order the return of the child to the parent . . . entitled to possession unless the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:

(1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child;

(2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child's removal; and

(3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home.

(c) If the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child, the court shall issue an appropriate temporary order under Chapter 105.

The hearing was attended by scores of attorneys for the parties, attorneys ad litem, guardians ad litem, Texas Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), and many others. The hearing was conducted in the courtroom in San Angelo with overflow participants in the city auditorium. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court issued temporary orders continuing the Department’s custody of the children and allowing for visitation by the parents only with the Department’s agreement.

Thirty-eight mothers petitioned the court of appeals for review by mandamus, seeking return of their 126 children. The record reflects that at least 117 of the children are under 13 and that two boys are 13 and 17. The ages of the other seven, at least two of whom are boys, are not shown. Concluding that the Department had failed to meet its burden of proof under section 262.201(b)(1), the court of appeals directed the district to vacate its temporary orders granting the Department custody. In re Steed, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.–Austin 2008).

The Department petitioned this Court for review by mandamus. Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals’ decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child”,[4] including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court”.[5] The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home[6] and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.[7] The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,[8] and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.[9]

While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department’s motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals’ decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings.
Although the SAPCRs involve important, fundamental issues concerning parental rights and the State’s interest in protecting children, it is premature for us to address those issues. The Department’s petition for mandamus is denied.

Opinion issued: May 29, 2008

[1] See Tex. Fam. Code § 262.104

(a) (“If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services . . . may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only:

(1) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

(2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

(3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;

(4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse . . . .”)

[2] See Tex. Fam. Code § 262.105

(a) (“When a child is taken into possession without a court order, the person taking the child into possession, without unnecessary delay, shall:

(1) file a suit affecting the parent-child relationship;

(2) request the court to appoint an attorney ad litem for the child; and

(3) request an initial hearing to be held by no later than the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession.”).

[3] Section 262.201

(a) provides: “Unless the child has already been returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession and the temporary order, if any, has been dissolved, a full adversary hearing shall be held not later than the 14th day after the date the child was taken into possession by the governmental entity.”
[4] Tex. Fam. Code § 105.001(a); see id. § 262.205.

[5] Id. § 105.001(a)(4).

[6] Id. § 262.1015.

[7] Id. § 261.303(b)-(c).

[8] Id. § 261.303(a).

[9] Id. § 261.3032.

Texas court upholds polygamist removals ruling

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court decision that said the state had overstepped its authority when it removed some 460 children from a polygamist ranch last month.

"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the opinion read.

The state's Family Code gives the district court "broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care," it said.

A spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined immediate comment.

The ruling should pave the way for the children to be reunited with their parents. One of the legal options left for child welfare authorities is having court-imposed restrictions on reunifications where there is cause for concern.

These restrictions could include orders not to take the children beyond a certain area while investigations continue.

The saga has captivated America with lurid allegations of adolescent brides, teenage pregnancies and a secretive sect following its faith in a massive white temple in a remote area of west Texas.

The children were removed in early April after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services received a telephone call reporting that a 16-year-old girl named Sarah was being physically and sexually abused at the compound. "Sarah" was never identified.

The compound is run by followers of jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs. They belong to a renegade Mormon sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS).

The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy over a century ago and is at pains to distance itself from splinter groups such as the FLDS that continue to practice plural marriage.

Original Article -

Texas court upholds polygamist removals ruling - Yahoo! News

They never cease to amaze me

I opened up my google alert for "child Protective Services" this morning and read these two stories one after the other.. for some reason I think they belong in ONE blog so here goes..

In part This article - Bureaucrats running down the clock against parents - Examiner.com
states ...

When Congress passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, it allowed states to terminate parental rights after a child has been in foster care longer than 15 months.

But the law, intended to keep children from truly abusive homes from languishing in foster care for years, had unintended consequences. States receive a $4,000 cash bonus from the federal government for each child adopted, multiplied by the percentage that the state exceeds its adoption goal.

The system gives child protective agencies a powerful financial incentive to terminate parental rights, something that they did more than 79,000 times nationwide in 2006, according to the federal Administration for Children and Families.

Continue reading ...Bureaucrats running down the clock against parents - Examiner.com

Then I read this article- SisterWoman

Which in part states "Family of five being torn apart, I need help to..."

Then this woman reminded me of me in the first sentance "To Whom It May Concern: I am really having a hard time believing that there is not one person that wants to help my family, I have four wonderful children..."

Then in another paragraph, she goes on to say ... "I have sent over 150 letters to Senators, attorneys, CASA, DHS, Child Protective services, news papers, new crews and many more people. I have received 4 letters in return stating they are unable to help or have a list of websites that have gone to, which were very helpful for other letters to go out, but not one person is willing or able to help me get my boys back to keep our family together.I could have aborted my children but I did not, I could have given them up for adoption but I did not, I have raised them with my heart and soul, I have given myself full time with unconditional love and I feel as if my heart is being ripped out, if I could just get my children back..."

So here it is...

Continue reading...SisterWoman

The Jail Interview Steven Morales Gave to Columbia Grads

An Update to A Short Life Ends on Rikers Island, in a Place Where Suicide Isn't Supposed to Happen Below.

This update is thanks to the comment left by Mr.Angry.

In November, two Columbia graduate journalism students, Molly Messick and Sarah Morgan, interviewed Steven Morales for a story on his experience in foster care. Morales killed himself at Rikers five months later. (See Graham Rayman's "A Short Life Ends on Rikers Island, in a Place Where Suicide Isn't Supposed to Happen," also in this week's Voice .) The Voice asked Messick and Morgan for a write-up of their conversation.

On a day a few weeks after his 18th birthday, Steven Morales sat in a pew in the Rikers Island chapel. Next to him was Javier Solano, the court-appointed defense attorney who would try to prove that Morales was innocent of second-degree murder.

Morales was there because his infant daughter died of suffocation one October night while in his care. The police report described bruises and fingerprints on her scalp, as if she'd been pressed against her mattress.

We were there to talk to Morales about the life he'd had before, the path that had landed him in jail—by his own description, abandoned and alone. It was the day before Thanksgiving. In the six weeks that Morales had been at Rikers, Solano and his co-counsel had been his only visitors.

"Everybody abandoned me, you know?" Morales told us in his only interview following his arrest. "Now I know who is there for me—and it is nobody."

Morales was a slim young man, not tall, swimming in his gray Department of Corrections jumpsuit and shuffling in his standard-issue orange slip-on shoes. His hair was freshly cut. Solano teased him about how short it was, and Morales rubbed his head, bashful.

Then he began telling us his version of his life story, without hesitation or strong emotion. It was a story of neglect and abuse, of a life that moved him from place to place but ultimately gave him few options.

"So, I guess it started out when I was born," Morales said. He described his mother as a crack-addicted prostitute he remembered meeting only once, when he was about 10. He was raised in the Bronx by his father, a Vietnam veteran who owned his own business repairing commercial kitchen appliances. In Morales's words, his father "had a very strong disciplining system."

"He taught me hard lessons," Morales said, "such as not to play with fire." Morales said that once, his father had thrown a burning plastic shower curtain on him, leaving him with third-degree burns. Morales thought he was about four or five when that happened.

"My father, he was never really comprehensive on how to take care of children," Morales said. The city's Administration for Children's Services took Morales away from his father when he was in the first grade, after he arrived at school crying because he'd been beaten.

Much More ---

village voice > news > The Jail Interview Steven Morales Gave to Columbia Grads by Molly Messick and Sarah Morgan

Children's abuse evident, doctor testifies, during trial of Mansa Musa Muhummed

Some of seven children and teenagers who were removed from their father's Aguanga home were so deprived of food and nurturing that they looked half their age, a pediatrician testified Wednesday.

In 1999, Marlon Boddie was almost 20. He was 4 ½ feet tall and weighed 78 pounds when Dr. Clare Sheridan-Matney examined him and six of his siblings after they were removed from defendant Mansa Musa Muhummed's home.

"He didn't look like a 20-year-old. He looks like a kid," said Sheridan-Matney, who is the head of forensic pediatrics at Loma Linda University Medical Center. Boddie's weight and height would have been normal for a 10- or 11-year-old, the doctor said.

Sheridan-Matney was the final prosecution witness in Muhummed's trial on child abuse and torture by starvation charges at the Southwest Justice Center.

Muhummed, 55, pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from the treatment of several of the 19 children who lived with him and his three wives at the home southeast of Temecula. The charges against Muhummed include child abuse of 12 children; torturing seven children by depriving them of food; spousal abuse and false imprisonment of two wives.

He could be sentenced to seven life terms in prison if convicted.

Muhummed, a Muslim, was arrested in April 1999 after one of his wives sent a letter to authorities. Two women and three children were found living in the home's garage without regular access to bathrooms.

Nine years after the doctor examined him, Boddie stands 5 feet 5 inches and weighs 167 pounds, according to prosecutor Julie Baldwin.

Sheridan-Matney testified that seven children suffered from psychosocial deprivation, the result of not getting those things necessary to develop. Children need to be physically and emotionally nourished to thrive, she said.

"If a child is very stressed, they won't grow," Sheridan-Matney said. "It has to be a very severe and chronic stress. ... Children need to be nurtured and feel safe to grow and develop properly."

Defense attorney Pete Morreale questioned the doctor about the number of documented cases of psychosocial deprivation syndrome.

Sheridan-Matney said she found about 10 case studies on it in the medical literature.

He asked whether the studies were important in reaching her diagnosis.

Yes, she said.

Authorities told Sheridan-Matney they suspected abuse and food deprivation before she ever evaluated the children. This is normal, she said, since all of her cases come to her because someone suspects abuse.

Baldwin later asked Sheridan-Matney whether there could be any organic cause of the children's low weight and short stature.

"I believe that my diagnosis is correct," the doctor said. "The way they have grown without treatment confirms it."

Muhummed's trial in French Valley will resume today. He remains in county jail where he has been held since 1999.

Reach Tammy J. McCoy at 951-375-3729 or tmccoy@PE.com

Original Article-

Children's abuse evident, doctor testifies, during trial of Mansa Musa Muhummed Inland News PE.com Southern California ...

A Short Life Ends on Rikers Island, in a Place Where Suicide Isn't Supposed to Happen

This story is SO SO SO SAD!

A must read- all the way through.

On the day that he arrived at Rikers Island last October, Steven Morales was a major suicide risk.

He was just 17 years old, charged with murder, accused of suffocating his infant daughter. He was a product of the city's foster-care system, his mother having abandoned him at birth. He had no money, little or no ties to family, and few friends. His only solid relationship—with his girlfriend, the mother of the dead infant—was collapsing.

Morales's lawyer considered the suicide risk so great that he recommended to a judge that the teen be housed in protective custody—where, the lawyer presumed, someone would keep a closer eye on him.

Protective custody, where inmates are locked in their cells up to 23 hours a day, was introduced to Rikers by jails boss Martin Horn in 2005 to house dangerous or vulnerable inmates, who would be safer there than in the general population.

But on April 27, something went terribly wrong when Horn's supervision system broke down.

That afternoon, Morales spoke to his girlfriend on the telephone and learned that she was breaking up with him, severing his last tie to the outside world. Devastated, he returned to his cell, secured a towel to the top of his cell door, wrapped the other end around his neck, and ended his life.

The officers assigned to the unit didn't notice until one of their bosses visited the floor and found him. By then, of course, it was too late.

"Someone needs to be held accountable," says Morales's lawyer, Javier Solano, a former Brooklyn prosecutor. "Based on his history and the fact that this kid, at age 17, was accused of a horrific crime, there certainly should have been much more supervision. I don't understand how he was able to do it in that setting."

The suicide in the Robert N. Davoren Center— occurring in the very place where inmate safety is supposed to be the highest priority—raises new questions about security issues at the jails under Horn's supervision, which the Voice has been reporting on for several months.

While conditions in the jails are certainly better than they were at the height of the crack epidemic, documents and interviews have revealed that violence is still a problem in the system. A series of Voice stories, for example, disclosed a spate of cases of correction officers using inmates as enforcers.

Correction Department spokesman Steve Morello declined to comment on the suicide, pending the results of several investigations.

The city Health Department, which is supposed to oversee the jails' for-profit medical and mental-health contractor, Prison Health Services, also declined to comment, citing federal and state patient-confidentiality laws.

MUCH More -Pages 2+ +

village voice > news > A Short Life Ends on Rikers Island, in a Place Where Suicide Isn't Supposed to Happen by Graham Rayman

Surviving the Narcissist

As most of my readers know, personality disorders interest me to no end.

I can't quite get enough information, the more I read the clearer things become.

I'd like to share this story below.

Check out the highlighted part where the author speaks about the invasion of the body snatchers.

Later in the article the author speaks about Stockholm syndrome. Before I reached the Stockholm Syndrome part I couldn't help but think..

I HAVE TO BLOG THIS- It so CLEARLY explains the how and why of alienated children's behaviour.

So without further delay...

Surviving the Narcissist

Question:

Is there a point in waiting for the narcissist to heal? Can it ever be better?

Answer:

Rescue Fantasies

"It is true that he is a chauvinistic narcissist with repulsive behaviours. But all he needs is a little love and he will be straightened out. I will rescue him from his misery and misfortune. I will give him the love that he lacked as a kid. Then his narcissism will vanish and we will live happily ever after."

Loving a Narcissist

I believe in the possibility of loving narcissists if one accepts them unconditionally, in a disillusioned and expectation-free manner.

Narcissists are narcissists. Take them or leave them. Some of them are lovable. Most of them are highly charming and intelligent. The source of the misery of the victims of the narcissist is their disappointment, their disillusionment, their abrupt and tearing and tearful realisation that they fell in love with an ideal of their own making, a phantasm, an illusion, a fata morgana. This "waking up" is traumatic. The narcissist is always the same. It is the victim who changes.

It is true that narcissists present a facade in order to generate Sources of Narcissistic Supply. But this facade is easy to penetrate because it is inconsistent and too perfect. The cracks are evident from day one but often ignored. And what about all those who KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY commit their wings to the burning narcissistic candle?

This is the catch-22. To react emotionally to a narcissist is like talking atheism to an Afghan fundamentalist. Narcissists have emotions, very strong ones, so terrifyingly strong and negative that they hide them, repress, block and transmute them. They employ a myriad of defence mechanisms: projective identification, splitting, projection, intellectualisation, rationalisation. Any effort to emotionally relate to a narcissist is doomed to failure, alienation and rage. Any attempt to "understand" (in retrospect or prospectively) narcissistic behaviour patterns, reactions, his inner world in emotional terms – is equally hopeless. Narcissists should be regarded as a force of nature or an accident.

There is no master-plot or mega-plan to deprive anyone of happiness. Being born to narcissistic parents, for instance, is not the result of a conspiracy. It is a tragic event, for sure. But it cannot be dealt with emotionally, without professional help, or haphazardly. Stay away from narcissists, or face them aided by your own self-discovery through therapy. It can be done. As opposed to narcissists, the prognosis for the victims of narcissists is fairly bright.

Narcissists have no interest in emotional or even intellectual stimulation by significant others. Such stimulation is perceived as a threat. Significant others in the narcissist's life have very clear roles: accumulation and dispensation of past Primary Narcissistic Supply in order to regulate current Narcissistic Supply. Nothing less but definitely nothing more. Proximity and intimacy breed contempt for reasons that I mentioned earlier. A process of devaluation is in full operation throughout the life of the relationship.

A passive witness to the narcissist's past accomplishments, a dispenser of accumulated Narcissistic Supply, a punching bag for his rages, a co-dependent, a possession (though not prized but taken for granted) and nothing much more. This is the ungrateful, FULL TIME, draining job of being the narcissist's significant other.

But humans are not instruments. To regard them as such is to devalue them, to reduce them, to restrict them, to prevent them from realising their potential. Inevitably, narcissists lose interest in their instruments, these truncated versions of full-fledged humans, once they cease to serve them in their pursuit of glory and fame.

Consider "friendship" with a narcissist as an example of such thwarted relationships. One cannot really get to know a narcissist "friend". One cannot be friends with a narcissist and ESPECIALLY – one cannot love a narcissist. Narcissists are addicts. They are no different to drug addicts. They are in pursuit of gratification through the drug known as Narcissistic Supply. Everything and EVERYONE around them is an object, a potential source (to be idealised) or not (and, then to be cruelly discarded).

Narcissists home in on potential suppliers like cruise missiles. They are excellent at imitating emotions, exhibiting the right timely behaviours and at manipulating.

All generalisations are false, of course, and there are bound to be some happy relationships with narcissists. I discuss the narcissistic couple in one of my FAQs. One example of a happy marriage is when the narcissist teams up with another narcissist of a different kind (somatic with cerebral or the reverse). Narcissists can be happily married to submissive, subservient, self-deprecating, echoing, mirroring and indiscriminately supportive spouses. They also do well with masochists. But it is difficult to imagine that a healthy, normal person would be happy in such a folies-a-deux ("madness in twosome").

It is also difficult to imagine a benign and sustained influence on the narcissist of a stable, healthy mate/spouse/partner. One of my FAQs is dedicated to this issue ("The Narcissist's Spouse / Mate / Partner").

BUT many a spouse/friend/mate/partner like to BELIEVE that – given sufficient time and patience – they will be the ones to release the narcissist from his wrenching bondage. They think that they can "rescue" the narcissist, shield him from his (distorted) self, as it were. The narcissist makes use of this naiveté and exploits it to his benefit. The natural protective mechanisms, which are provoked in normal people by love – are cold bloodedly used by the narcissist to extract yet more Narcissistic Supply from his writhing victim.

The narcissist affects his victims by infiltrating their psyche, by penetrating their defences. Like a virus, it establishes a new genetic strain within his/her victims. It echoes through them, it talks through them, it walks through them. It is like the invasion of the body snatchers.

You should be careful to separate your self from the narcissist inside you, this alien growth, this spiritual cancer that is the result of living with a narcissist. You should be able to tell apart your real you and the YOU assigned to you by the narcissist. To cope with him/her, the narcissist forces you to "walk on eggshells" and develop a False Self of your own. It is nothing as elaborate as his False Self – but it is there, in you, as a result of the trauma and abuse inflicted upon you by the narcissist.

Thus, perhaps we should invent VoNPD, another mental health category – Victims of NPD. They experience shame and anger for their past helplessness and submissiveness. They are hurt and sensitised by the harrowing experience of sharing a simulated existence with a simulated person, the narcissist. They are scarred and often suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Some of them lash out at others, offsetting their frustration with bitter aggression (a classic mechanism).

Like his disorder, the narcissist is all-pervasive. Being the victim of a narcissist is a condition no less pernicious than being a narcissist. Great efforts are required to abandon a narcissist and physical separation is only the first (and less consequential) step. One can abandon a narcissist – but the narcissist is slow to abandon its victims. It is there, lurking, rendering existence unreal, twisting and distorting with no respite, an inner, remorseless voice, lacking in compassion and empathy for its victim. The narcissist is there in spirit long after it has vanished in the flesh. This is the real danger that the victims of the narcissist face: that they become like him, bitter, self-centred, lacking in empathy. This is the last bow of the narcissist, his curtain call, by proxy as it were.

Narcissistic Tactics

The narcissist tends to surround himself with his inferiors (in some respect: intellectually, financially, physically). He limits his interactions with them to the plane of his superiority. This is the safest and fastest way to sustain his grandiose fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience, brilliance, ideal traits, perfection and so on.

Humans are interchangeable and the narcissist anyhow does not distinguish one individual from another. To him they are all inanimate elements of "his audience" whose job is to reflect his False Self. This generates a perpetual and permanent cognitive dissonance:

The narcissist despises the very people who sustain his Ego boundaries and functions. He cannot respect people so expressly and clearly inferior to him – yet he can never associate with people evidently on his level or superior to him, the risk of narcissistic injury in such associations being too great. Equipped with a fragile Ego, precariously teetering on the brink of narcissistic injury – the narcissist prefers the safe route. But he feels contempt for himself and for others for having preferred it.

Some NPDs are ALSO Antisocial PDs (AsPDs) and/or sadists. Antisocials don't really ENJOY hurting others – they simply don't care one way or the other. But sadists do enjoy it.

"Pure" NPDs do not enjoy hurting others – but they do enjoy the sensation of unlimited power and the validation of their grandiose fantasies when they hurt others or are in the position to do so. It is more the POTENTIAL to hurt others than the actual act that turns them on.

The Neverending Story

Even the official termination of a relationship with a narcissist is not the end of the affair. The Ex "belongs" to the narcissist. She is an inseparable part of his Pathological Narcissistic Space. This possessive streak is not terminated with the physical separation. Thus, the narcissist is likely to respond with rage, seething envy, a sense of humiliation and invasion and violent-aggressive urges to an ex's new boyfriend, or new job (to her new life without him). Especially since it implies a "failure" on his part and, thus negates his grandiosity.

But there is a second scenario:

If the narcissist were to firmly believe (which is very rare) that the ex does not and will never represent any amount, however marginal and residual, of any kind (primary or secondary) of Narcissistic Supply – he would remain utterly unmoved by anything she does and anyone she may choose to be with.

Narcissists do feel bad about hurting others and about the unsavoury course their lives tend to assume. Their ego-dystony (=feeling bad about themselves) was only recently discovered and described. But my suspicion is that a narcissist feels bad only when his Supply Sources are threatened because of his behaviour or following a narcissistic injury (such as a major life crisis: divorce, bankruptcy, etc.).

The narcissist equates emotions with weakness. He regards the sentimental and the emotional with contempt. He looks down on the sensitive and the vulnerable. He derides and despises the dependent and the loving. He mocks expressions of compassion and passion. He is devoid of empathy. He is so afraid of his True Self that he would rather disparage it than admit to his own faults and "soft spots".

He likes to talk about himself in mechanical terms ("machine", "efficient", "punctual", "output", "computer").

He suppresses his human side diligently and with a dedication derived from his drive to survive. To him it is impossible to be both human and to survive. He must choose and his choice is clear. The narcissist never looks back, unless and until forced to by life circumstances.

ALL narcissists fear intimacy. But the cerebral narcissist deploys strong defences against it: "scientific detachment" (the narcissist as the eternal observer), intellectualising and rationalising his emotions away, intellectual cruelty (see my FAQ regarding inappropriate affect), intellectual "annexation" (regarding the other person as the narcissist's extension or territory), objectifying the other and so on. Even emotions that are expressed (pathological envy, neurotic or other rage, etc.) have the not totally unintended effect of alienating rather than creating intimacy.
Abandoning the Narcissist.

The narcissist INITIATES his own abandonment BECAUSE of his fear of it. He is so afraid of losing his sources (and of unconsciously being emotionally hurt) – that he would rather "control", "master", or "direct" the potentially destabilising situation – than confront its effects if initiated by the significant other. Remember: the personality of the narcissist has a low level of organization. It is precariously balanced.

Being abandoned could cause a narcissistic injury so grave that the whole edifice can come crumbling down. Narcissists usually entertain suicidal ideation in such cases. BUT, if the narcissist initiated and directed his abandonment, if the abandonment is perceived by him to be a goal HE set to himself to achieve – he can and does avoid all these untoward consequences. (See the section about Emotional Involvement Prevention Mechanisms in the Essay.)

The Dynamics of the Relationship

The narcissist lives in a fantasised world of ideal beauty, incomparable (imaginary) achievements, wealth, brilliance and unmitigated success. The narcissist denies his reality constantly. This is what I call the Grandiosity Gap – the abyss between his sense of entitlement and his inflated grandiose fantasies – and his incommensurate reality and achievements.

The narcissist's partner is perceived by him to be a Source of Narcissistic Supply, an instrument, an extension of himself. It is inconceivable that – blessed by the constant presence of the narcissist – such a tool would malfunction. The needs and grievances of the partner are perceived by the narcissist as THREATS and INSULTS. He considers his very existence in the relationship as sufficiently nourishing and sustaining. He feels entitled to the best others can offer without investing in maintaining relationships or in catering to the well-being of his "suppliers". To rid himself of deep-set feelings of (rather justified) guilt and shame – he pathologises the partner. He projects sickness unto her. Through the intricate mechanism of projective identification he forces her to play an emergent role of "the sick" or "the weak" or "the naive" or "the dumb" or "the no good". What he denies in himself, what he is terrified of facing in his own personality – he attributes to others and moulds them to conform to his prejudices against himself.

The narcissist MUST have THE best, the MOST glamorous, stunning, talented, head turning, mind-boggling spouse in the WORLD. Nothing short of this fantasy will do. To compensate for the shortcomings of his real life spouse – he invents an idealised figure and relates to it instead. Then, when reality conflicts too often and too evidently with the ideal figure – he reverts to devaluation. His behaviour turns on a dime and becomes threatening, demeaning, contemptuous, berating, reprimanding, destructively critical and sadistic – or cold, unloving, detached, and "clinical". He punishes his real life spouse for not living up to his standards as personified in his Galathea, in his Pygmalion, in his ideal creation. The narcissist plays a wrathful and demanding God.

Moving On

To preserve one's mental health – one must abandon the narcissist. One must move on.

Moving on is a process, not a decision or an event. First, one has to acknowledge and accept reality. It is a volcanic, shattering, agonising series of little, nibbling, thoughts and strong resistances. Once the battle is won, and harsh and painful realities are assimilated, one can move on to the learning phase.

We label. We assemble material. We gather knowledge. We compare experiences. We digest. We have insights.

Then we decide and we act. This is "to move on". Having gathered sufficient emotional sustenance, support and confidence – we face the battlefields of our relationships, fortified and nurtured. This stage characterises those who do not mourn – but fight; do not grieve – but replenish their self-esteem; do not hide – but seek; do not freeze – but move on.

Grieving

After being betrayed and abused – we grieve. We grieve for the image we had of the traitor and abuser – the image that was so fleeting and so wrong. We mourn the damage he did to us. We experience the fear of never being able to love or to trust again – and we grieve this loss. In one stroke, we lost someone we trusted and even loved, we lost our trusting and loving selves and we lost the trust and love that we felt. Can anything be worse?

The emotional process of grieving is multiphased. At first, we are dumbfounded, shocked, inert, immobile. We play dead to avoid our inner monsters. We are ossified in our pain, cast in the mould of our reticence and fears. Then we feel enraged, indignant, rebellious and hateful. Then we accept. Then we cry. And then – some of us – learn to forgive and to pity. And this is called healing.

ALL stages are absolutely necessary and good. It is bad NOT to rage back, not to shame those who shamed us, to deny, to pretend, to evade. But it is equally bad to get fixated on our rage like this forever. Permanent grieving is the perpetuation of our abuse by other means. By endlessly recreating our harrowing experiences, we unwillingly collaborate with our abuser to perpetuate his or her evil deeds. It is by moving on that we defeat our abuser, minimising him and his importance in our lives. It is by loving and by trusting anew that we annul that which was done to us. To forgive is never to forget. But to remember is not necessarily to re-live.

Forgiving and Forgetting

Forgiving is an important capability. It does more for the forgiver than for the forgiven. But, to my mind, it should not be a universal, indiscriminate behaviour. I think it is legitimate not to forgive sometimes. It depends, of course, on the severity or duration of what was done to you. In general, it is unwise and counter-productive, in my view, to establish "universal" and "immutable" principles in life. Life is too chaotic to succumb to rigid principles. Sentences, which start with "I never" are either not very credible or, worse, they lead to self-defeating, self-restricting and self-destructive behaviours.

Conflicts are an important and integral part of life. One should never seek them out willingly – but when confronted with a conflict, one should not avoid it. It is through conflicts and adversity as much as through care and love that we grow.

Human relationships are dynamic. We must assess our friendships, partnerships, even marriages periodically. The past is insufficient in itself to sustain a healthy, nourishing, supportive, caring and compassionate relationship. It is a pre-condition, perhaps a necessary one – but not a sufficient one. We must gain and regain our friendships on a daily basis. Human relationships are a constant test of allegiance and empathy.

Remaining Friends with the Narcissist

But can't we act civilised and remain on friendly terms with our narcissist ex? Never forget that narcissists (full fledged ones) are nice to others when:

They want something – Narcissistic Supply, help, support, votes, money… They prepare the ground, manipulate you and then come out with the "small favour" they need or ask you blatantly or surreptitiously for Narcissistic Supply ("What did you think about my performance…", "Do you think that I really deserve the Nobel Prize?").

They feel threatened and they want to neuter the threat by smothering it with oozing pleasantries.

They have just been infused with an overdose of Narcissistic Supply and they feel magnanimous and magnificent and ideal and perfect. To show magnanimity is a way of flaunting one's impeccable divine credentials. It is an act of grandiosity. You are an irrelevant prop in this spectacle, a mere receptacle of the narcissist's overflowing, self-contented infatuation with his False Self.

This beneficence is transient. Perpetual victims often tend to "thank God for little graces" (God being the narcissist). This is the Stockholm syndrome: hostages tend to emotionally identify with their captors rather than with the police. We are grateful to our abusers and tormentors for ceasing their hideous activities and letting us breathe for a while.

Some people say that they prefer to live with narcissists, to cater to their needs and to succumb to their whims because this is the way they have been conditioned in early childhood. It is only with narcissists that they feel alive, stimulated and excited. The world glows in Technicolor in the presence of a narcissist and decays to sepia colours in his absence.

I see nothing inherently "wrong" with that. The test is this: if a person were to constantly humiliate and abuse you verbally using Archaic Chinese – would you have felt humiliated and abused? Probably not. Some people have been conditioned by the narcissistic Primary Objects in their lives (parents or caregivers) to treat narcissistic abuse as Archaic Chinese, to turn a deaf ear. This technique is effective in that it allows the inverted narcissist (the narcissist's willing mate) to experience only the good aspects of living with a narcissist: his sparkling intelligence, the constant drama and excitement, the lack of intimacy and emotional attachment (some people prefer this). Every now and then the narcissist breaks into abuse in Archaic Chinese, so what, who understands Archaic Chinese anyway?

I have only one nagging doubt, though:

If the relationship with a narcissist is so rewarding, why are inverted narcissists so unhappy, so ego-dystonic, so in need of help (professional or otherwise)? Aren't they victims who simply experience the Stockholm syndrome (=identifying with the kidnapper rather than with the Police)?

Narcissists and Abandonment

Narcissists are terrified of being abandoned exactly as codependents and borderlines are.

BUT

Their solution is different.

Codependents cling. Borderlines are emotionally labile and react disastrously to the faintest hint of being abandoned.

Narcissists FACILITATE the abandonment. They MAKE SURE that they are abandoned.

This way they achieve two goals:

Getting it over with – The narcissist has a very low threshold of tolerance to uncertainty and inconvenience, emotional or material. Narcissists are very impatient and "spoiled". They cannot delay gratification OR impending doom. They must have it all NOW, good or bad.

By bringing the feared abandonment about, the narcissist can lie to himself persuasively. "She didn't abandon me, it is I who abandoned her. I controlled the situation. It was all my doing, so I was really not abandoned, was I now?" In time, the narcissist adopts this "official version" as the truth. He might say: "I deserted her emotionally and sexually long before she left."

This is one of the important Emotional Involvement Prevention Mechanisms (EIPM) that I write about extensively in the Essay.


Why the Failing Relationships?

Narcissists HATE happiness and joy and ebullience and vivaciousness – in short, they hate life itself.

The roots of this bizarre propensity can be traced to a few psychological dynamics, which operate concurrently (it is very confusing to be a narcissist).

First, there is pathological envy.

The narcissist is constantly envious of other people: their successes, their property, their character, their education, their children, their ideas, the fact that they can feel, their good mood, their past, their future, their present, their spouses, their mistresses or lovers, their location…

Almost ANYTHING can be the trigger of a bout of biting, acidulous envy. But there is nothing, which reminds the narcissist more of the totality of his envious experiences than happiness. Narcissists lash out at happy people out of their own deprivation.

Then there is narcissistic hurt.

The narcissist regards himself as the centre of the world and of the lives of people around him. He is the source of all emotions, responsible for all developments, positive and negative alike, the axis, the prime cause, the only cause, the mover, the shaker, the broker, the pillar, forever indispensable. It is therefore a bitter and sharp rebuke to this grandiose fantasy to see someone else happy. It confronts the narcissist with a reality outside the realm of his fantasies. It painfully serves to illustrate to him that he is but one of many causes, phenomena, triggers and catalysts. That there are things happening outside the orbit of his control or initiative.

The narcissist uses projective identification. He feels bad through other people, his proxies. He induces unhappiness and gloom in others to enable him to experience his own misery. Inevitably, he attributes the source of such sadness either to himself, as its cause – or to the "pathology" of the sad person.

"You are constantly depressed, you should really see a therapist" is a common sentence.

The narcissist – in an effort to maintain the depressive state until it serves some cathartic purposes – strives to perpetuate it by sowing constant reminders of its existence. "You look sad/bad/pale today. Is anything wrong? Can I help you? Things haven't been going so well lately?"

Last but not least is the exaggerated fear of losing control.

The narcissist feels that he controls his human environment mostly by manipulation and mainly by emotional extortion and distortion. This is not far from reality. He suppresses any sign of emotional autonomy. He feels threatened and belittled by an emotion not fostered by him or by his actions directly or indirectly. Counteracting someone else's happiness is the narcissist's way of reminding everyone: I am here, I am omnipotent, you are at my mercy and you will feel happy only when I tell you to.

Living with a Narcissist

You cannot change people, not in the real, profound, deep sense. You can only adapt to them and adapt them to you. If you do find your narcissist rewarding at times – you should do two things, in my opinion:

Determine your limits and boundaries. How much and in which ways can you adapt to him (i.e., accept him AS HE IS) AND to which extent and in which ways would you like him to adapt to you (i.e., accept you as you are). Act accordingly. Accept what you have decided to accept and reject the rest.
Change in you what you are willing and able to change – and ignore the rest.
It is sort of an unwritten contract of co-existence (could be written if you are more formally inclined).

Try to maximise the number of times that "…his walls are down", that you "…find him totally fascinating and everything I desire". What makes him be and behave this way? Is it something that YOU say or do? Is it preceded by events of a specific nature? Is there anything you can do to make him behave this way more often?

Remember, though:

Sometimes we mistake guilt and self-assumed blame for love.

Committing suicide for someone else's sake is not love.

Sacrificing yourself for someone else is not love.

It is domination.

You control your narcissist by giving, as much as he controls you through his pathology.

Your generosity prevents him from facing his True Self and thus healing.

But this you must remember as well:

It is impossible to have a relationship with a narcissist that is meaningful to the narcissist.

It is, of course, possible to have a relationship with a narcissist that is meaningful to you
(see FAQ 66).

You modify your behaviour in order to secure the narcissist's continuing love, not in order to be abandoned.

This is the root of the perniciousness of this phenomenon:

The narcissist IS a meaningful, crucially significant figure ("object") in the inverted narcissist's life.

This is the narcissist's leverage over the inverted narcissist. And since the inverted narcissist is usually very young when making the adaptation to the narcissist – it all boils down to fear of abandonment and death in the absence of care and sustenance.

I don't think that the inverted narcissist's accommodation of the narcissist is as much a wish to gratify one's narcissist (parent) – as the sheer terror of forever withholding gratification from one's self.

The Need to be Hopeful

I understand the need to be hopeful.

There are gradations of narcissism. In all my writings, I am referring to the extreme and ultimate form of narcissism, the NPD. People with narcissistic traits or a narcissistic style have hope.

We often confuse shame with guilt.

Narcissists feel shameful when confronted with a failure. They feel (narcissistically) injured. Their omnipotence is threatened, their sense of perfection and uniqueness is questioned. They are enraged, engulfed by self-reprimand, self-loathing and internalised violent urges.

The narcissist punishes himself for failing to be God – not for the maltreatment of others.

The narcissist makes an effort to communicate his pain and shame in order to elicit the Narcissistic Supply needed to restore and regulate his failing sense of self-worth. In doing so, the narcissist resorts to the human vocabulary of empathy. The narcissist will say anything to obtain Narcissistic Supply. It is a manipulative ploy – not a confession of real emotions or an authentic description of internal dynamics.

Yes, the narcissist is a child – but a very precocious and young one.

Yes, he can tell right from wrong – but is indifferent to both.

Yes, it is a process of "re-parenting" (what Kohut called a "self-object") that is required, of growth, of maturation. In the best of cases, it takes years and the prognosis is dismal.

Yes, some narcissists make it. And their mates or spouses or children or colleagues or lovers rejoice.

But is the fact that people survive tornadoes – a reason to go out and seek one?

The narcissist is very much attracted to vulnerability, to unstable or disordered personalities or to his inferiors. Such people constitute secure Sources of Narcissistic Supply. The inferior offer adulation. The mentally disturbed, the traumatised, the abused become dependent and addicted to him. The vulnerable can be easily and economically manipulated without fear of repercussions.

I think that "a healing narcissist" is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron (though NOT in all cases, of course).

Still, healing (not only of narcissists) is dependent upon and derived from a sense of security in a relationship.

The narcissist is not particularly interested in healing. He tries to optimise his returns, taking into consideration the scarcity and finiteness of his resources. Healing, to him, is simply a bad business proposition.

In the narcissist's world being accepted or cared for (not to mention loved) is a foreign language.

That is: meaningless.

One might recite the most delicate haiku in Japanese and it would still remain meaningless to a non-Japanese.

That non-Japanese are not adept at Japanese does not diminish the value of the haiku OR of the Japanese language, needless to say.

Narcissists damage and hurt but they do so off-handedly and naturally, as an after-thought and reflexively.

They are aware of what they are doing to others – but they do not care.

Sometimes, they sadistically taunt and torment people – but they do not perceive this to be evil – merely amusing.

They feel that they are entitled to their pleasure and gratification (Narcissistic Supply is often obtained by subjugating and subsuming others).

They feel that others are less than human, mere extensions of the narcissist, or instruments to fulfil the narcissist's wishes and obey his often capricious commands.

The narcissist feels that no evil can be inflicted on machines, instruments, or extensions.

Original Article-

Surviving the Narcissist, Does The Narcissist Get Better?