DARVO is a popular strategy of coercive controllers and an important aspect of the PsychoSocial Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control.
DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender, and coercive controllers use it to get away with their coercive and controlling behaviors, with the added benefit of focusing all of the blame on their targeted victim. The term DARVO was coined by Jennifer Freyd in research, where she found it to be very common, especially, with coercive controllers who had perpetrated sexual assault and used it to deflect attention and avoid consequences. This is what Freyd's web site says about DARVO.
"DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—a perpetrator strategy. The perpetrator may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender, so that the perpetrator adopts the victim role and accuses the true victim of being an offender."
Freyd's site includes a link to a Southpark video that explains DARVO and gives examples (If you don't care for Southpark, or if you support Donald Trump, I don't recommend watching it because it's not very flattering of the former president).
DARVO isn't only utilized by coercive controllers to avoid sexual assault or sexual misconduct allegations. DARVO is also used frequently in family court, not just in the US, but worldwide. Because court policies and practices, especially family court policies and practices, are not designed to protect victims. Criminal courts are designed to punish crimes while protecting citizens from false prosecution, and reasonable doubt is the foundation of our criminal justice process for preventing this. Guilt, in this system, is determined by judging the evidence against "a reasonable doubt". If guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not established, defendants are set free. One aspect of this is very good. After all we don't want innocent people being sent to prison.
However, when a person has committed a crime, but law enforcement and prosecutors are unable or unwilling to hold them accountable, due to reasonable doubt, the only person who wins is the perpetrator. Although some might argue that society wins because reasonable doubt does a decent job of preventing false prosecution, with certain crimes, especially gender based crimes like domestic violence and sexual assault, this does not appear to be the case. Prosecution of these crimes is almost non-existent it's so low, and domestic violence offenders, in particular, have about a 98% chance of avoiding jail time.
Another aspect of our criminal justice system, at least in the US, is the right of an accused to be represented by an attorney, and if they can't afford an attorney, to be provided one at no cost. This too is important to keep innocent people from going to jail (not that it always does). But this too can reduce the likelihood a true perpetrator will be held accountable.
Additionally, the rules in our current systems were designed to protect those who were privileged at the time the systems were created. That means that there is prejudice and bias baked into the policies and procedures of these systems. Gender bias, economic and racial bias (among others) are woven throughout these systems, and just like coercive control, the bias is invisible in plain sight.
The majority of domestic abuse victims have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (I prefer "response" to "disorder", but this is the current name in the DSM) from the abuse and/or coercive control they suffered at the hands of their perpetrator. PTSD is a recognized disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although courts are supposed to follow the the ADA, victims are rarely provided with the information they need to avail themselves of these protections. And even when victim/survivors do attempt to use the ADA to protect themselves in court, it can be used against them, potentially making them appear to uneducated judges to be less capable of caring for their children, and further disadvantaging them in family court custody matters.
There are other problems with bias and assumptions in family court. Victims often face bias by uneducated attorneys and judges who blame victims for staying, or for leaving, or for calling the police, or for not calling the police, or for failing to give their child enough love and support (neglect), or for giving their child too much love and support (enmeshment), or for "alienating" the child from his father, or for "failing to protect" a child from his father... the list of double binds that victims face in family court can seem endless, because it practically is!
Then there's the gender credibility gap that women have to overcome when facing a coercive controller in family court. Women are perceived as less credible automatically, and credibility is EVERYTHING in a custody battle when you are trying to protect your children from an abusive ex. If the court believes you are lying, you're done for. Custody decisions will favor the coercive controller. And the chance of this happening increases when the coercive controller claims the victim/survivor has alienated the children, as indicated by Joan Meier's research.
With everything else standing in the way of justice and safety for victim/survivors of coercive control in family court, the final blow is often perpetrated using DARVO. Coercive controllers know that family court is biased in favor of fathers. They know this because the Father's Rights Movement has been operating for decades to gaslight the family court system into the false assumption that 50/50 custody is best for children... even when domestic violence or abuse are factors. This movement, which sounds like a good thing, should be more accurately labelled "Abuser's Rights", rather than Father's Rights, because they primarily operate to shield abusive men from consequences, and to silence and harm victim/parents of coercive control and domestic violence by weaponizing children.
The number one weapon of the father's rights groups is to claim the mother (who has accused the father of domestic violence, child abuse or coercive control) is lying. Not only, do they claim she's lying, but she has also "brainwashed the children" to believe the "lies" and "turned the children against the father".
Here's how DARVO can, and often does, play out in family court:
DENY - the coercive controller claims "I never abused my wife or children. I'm a good dad. I love my children. I would never hurt them."
ATTACK - then the coercive controller exploits the gender bias already present in family court to attack her credibility with something like, "I think she might have a personality disorder.... Borderline... I think it's called... Borderline Personality Disorder. She needs to be evaluated for drug and alcohol use, and another thing... she's crazy."
REVERSE VICTIM & OFFENDER - the coercive controller finishes off the victim/survivor of his (almost always intentional) coercive control by playing the victim and claiming the victim harmed him. "I don't understand why my ex-wife is saying these horrible things about me. I know she was abused by her father. She must have a 'victim-mentality' that is clouding her judgement and making her believe I did something I didn't do. "She must have some kind of mental illness" OR "She's a mean drunk and can't take care of the kids" OR "My children loved me and wanted to be with me until she started claiming I was abusive. I just want to be able to see my children, whom I love dearly. Is that too much to ask?"
DARVO is incredibly effective in family court because coercive controllers exploit the system's vulnerabilities the same way they exploit their targeted victim's vulnerabilities. They use existing bias, bad policies, ignorance of evidence-based research, lack of transparency, lack of accountability for judicial actors, fear, threats and manipulation and more... to WIN. After all, it is the ultimate goal of coercive control to completely dominate the victim, and winning in family court helps the coercive controller do just that.
How can we fight back against this incredible injustice and protect children from dangerous coercive controllers?
We have to do what has been shown to reduce DARVO. We have to point it out. We have to educate the court to the coercively controlling strategy of DARVO, so that when an attorney or a judge sees it playing out, they can call it out... and they can find in favor of the protection for adult and child victims in the case. If you see DARVO, please don't stay silent, believing it is a private matter. Call it out when you see it. DARVO loses it's power when the coercive controller can no longer hide behind this deceptive and manipulative strategy.
