What Baby Reindeer Reveals About Family Court

So Fiona Harvey (FH), aka the self identified real life Martha, is suing Richard Gadd (her victim), Netflix (the ones who believed the victim) and the production company (the ones who gave the victim a voice).?

This comes as no surprise ?? to me or anyone else who has dealt with a narcissistic person in Family Court.?

Her behaviours are textbook ??

They are also a really good tool for explaining how victims experience Family Court against an abusive ex. Here's how:

?? FH is hyper-focused on one detail - the part where they say she was convicted and went to prison.? She hasn't denied sending messages in fact in her interview with predatory Piers Morgan, she admits to sending some (her explanation as to why and how many changes but she did send them). In Family Court, a narcissist will demand all the court's attention is focused on one thing, diverting it away from the whole picture and hiding behind this one contentious point.

?? People are saying Netflix shouldn't have said it was a true story, they should have said “based on..” because this lead people to finding her. I disagree on that but my main comparison is that it is her behaviour both towards RG and since which has lead people to finding her. If she hadn't done those things, there'd be nothing to find. Narcissists will get angry at the victim for bringing up evidence claiming it is irrelevant and often they succeed in getting it dismissed or at least overlooked.

?? It is my opinion that FH is so delusional that she believes the messages were wanted/justified therefore she didn't stalk anyone. Narcissist’s display this distorted thinking all the time. They vehemently deny allegations made against them with such ferocity that people believe them. This is because they genuinely believe they haven't done anything wrong.

?? This thought distortion then allows them to play the victim.? FH engaged with amateur sleuths who found her and the media rather than close things down. She wanted and revelled in the attention because it allowed her to play the victim. The irony being she is now accusing people of doing to her exactly what she did to RG. Projection 101.

?? FH has maneuvered herself into the victim role which is classic DARVO tactics. RG is being questioned over his credibility, the validity of his evidence and his personality. Victim shaming 101.

?? These tactics are all designed to silence the victim in an attempt to protect her false identity. Family Court has become a gagging order placed on victims who not only are told their abuse is irrelevant or imagined, but they in fact are abusive for talking about it.

?? FH has employed the services of an “aggressive law firm” to take on Netflix. Now obviously Netflix aren't small fry themselves but her attitude towards litigation speaks volumes about how she treats people. She is forceful and a bully. Narcissists choose lawyers who share their communication style. That's how victims get bullied into useless court orders.

?? The chosen high powered law firm also speaks of her grandiose sense of self, her belief that she is superior to others and that she deserves special attention. All that she felt Richard should see in her. This betrayal, in her eyes of Richard, to not recognise her “true worth” (I.e. seeing past this false self) must be punished. That is why victims end up in Family Courts.

Playing Devil's ?? Advocate

I always zoom out of cases and look at the whole picture, so here are some additional points:

?? She has a right to reply, especially if it isn't true.? However, given her public behaviour since, I think it is fair to say she definitely sent all those messages and so she did stalk him. Therefore there has to be a balance between having her say and being mindful of the trauma this is causing the victim. FH clearly has zero empathy but RG showed a vast amount of compassion for Martha both in the show and since. In reality, the ending she is arguing about (court and jail) was a redeeming factor for her in the show and IF Richard did concoct that ending, it was clearly to humanise her. The fact Fiona can't see that is very telling and reveals her cognitive distortions and that she is far more concerned with the damage being done to her reputation (false as it may be) than people having sympathy for her.

?? Sadly this is another case of trial by media which has lead to a complete distortion of the story and it's purpose. Men’s support groups have documented a huge rise in calls to helplines following the programme. It has also allowed other victims of FH to come forward. A fact that has been conveniently dismissed as everyone focuses on the trial of the century.?

I don't think that anyone deserves to be attacked and harassed and if FH feels that way, she deserves to be protected from it. If that is what she really wants......

If RG has lied about some of this, so effing what in my opinion. He can prove the majority of the story is true. Yes there might be some argument that there are parts which are "his truth" rather than factual but that doesn't make him any less of a victim. Unfortunately in FH's eyes it does make him an abuser though because how dare he lie about her? How dare he call her out? How dare he talk about his own experience if it paints her in a bad light? (ignoring the fact it didn't exactly paint him in a great light either of course because that is an inconvenient truth!). How dare he not see her worth? I honestly can't see this ending. FH will never let it go. She is getting too much attention and being able to play the victim with sycophants rallying around her, revelling in their own gains.

My final point is regarding her gender. Would a male victim be getting this much air time? Would there be any debates about "who is lying?" Would we be excusing it as a mental health issue? It's hard to imagine that Piers Morgan or any other media outlet would be inviting on a male stalking but then I guess in this crazy world of "celebrity culture" Fiona is a celebrity now and rules appear to be different for them. It definitely has a feel of Depp V Heard which was horrific and disgusting whilst being compelling and insightful. Perhaps that is the human condition. Perhaps I am going off on a tangent. So these are my final thoughts:

FH shows stalking behaviour. She has repeatedly traumatised victims with her obsessive and aggressive communication. She refuses to accept any responsibility and makes derogatory comments about everyone who questions her false self. She is an abuser. Whether or not she went to prison is irrelevant to me. She is dangerous and rather than support her attempts to reestablish her false persona, we should be looking for ways to prevent her hurting anyone else.?

Sadly, much like Family Court, prevention is forgotten as the circus has come to town ???

What do you think?

If you are looking for support in facing a narcissistic ex in Family Court from a no-nonsense, straight talking ex social worker who actually understands what you have been through, check out my offerings at www.getcourtready.co.uk