SPEAKER_01: 0:00

Before we dive into today's episode, it's important that I make clear that nothing in this episode is legal advice, nor is it a substitute for legal advice.

SPEAKER_00: 0:18

Hey, I'm Danielle Black, and I'm the coach you need if you're struggling with all things post-separation. I don't play by the old rules. I specialise in child-focused, evidence-based parenting arrangements that put kids at the center instead of keeping them stuck in the middle. Let's go.

SPEAKER_01: 0:46

If you've recently received a family report that's gotten it completely wrong, listening to this episode might be one of the most important things that you spend time on this week. I'm Danielle Black, and today we're talking about why professionals consistently miss coercive control, even when the evidence is right in front of them, and what this can mean for your decision making. I want to talk about something that might explain the family report that you've received. Something that I call the Ted Bundy effect in family court and with court professionals. You've just finished reading the family report and your stomach drops. The professional has completely missed it. The charming presentation, the deflection, the subtle manipulation it's all there in your affidavit, in your evidence. But somehow the report reads like a character reference for the very person that you're trying to protect your kids from. You might be thinking, how did they not say it? Am I the crazy one? Have I been documenting things wrong? Did I just say the wrong thing? The answer is no, you're not crazy. And yes, there is a reason that professionals consistently miss coercive control even when the evidence is right in front of them. Forensic psychologist doctor Catherine Ramsland coined the term the Bundy effect to describe serial killer Ted Bundy's ability to create multiple impressions fluidly and effectively to achieve his goals. Bundy was chameleonic. He became whatever he needed to be for different audiences. I want to be very clear about what I'm saying here and also what I'm not saying. I'm not comparing your former partner to a serial killer. That's not the point at all. What I am talking about is what Ted Bundy's case teaches us about perception, professional bias, and how even trained, smart professionals can be fooled by surface level presentation. Here's what's relevant. Bundy fooled judges, lawyers, psychologists, journalists, and even his own defence attorney. Now these were intelligent educated professionals, and yet many could not see what was right in front of them. Why? Bundy's own defence attorney, Polly Nelson, searched for signs that she, as a smart woman, would have spotted. She wrote, but I saw nothing. This dangerous man was not detectable by sight or sound. Not because he exuded charm, but because he truly believed he was not guilty. That's the key in sight. Professionals are not looking for someone who believes their own narrative. They're looking for more obvious guilt, obvious aggression or malice, obvious manipulation. When someone believes their own narrative when they present as calm, reasonable and cooperative, when they use all of the quote right language about being child focused and wanting to co parent, many professionals take that at face value. This isn't just my observation. There's research that backs this up. Psychologist Paul Eckman evaluated over five hundred people, including federal law enforcement officers, judges, psychiatrists, and psychologists on their ability to detect deception in videotaped interviews. The results were sobering. Most groups performed only slightly better than chance, so basically a flip of the coin. Federal polygraphers, judges and psychiatrists were no more accurate than college students at detecting lies. Some groups actually formed worse than chance. The only exception was the US Secret Service. Why did the Secret Service do better? Because members who work in protection details, guarding government officials from potential threats, are trained to focus on nonverbal behavior and threat patterns rather than the words that people say. They're not listening to explanations, they're watching for other signs and signals. This is one of the things that is missing in family court assessments and in the training of report writers and other professionals. And here's where the Australian family court system gets even worse. Those professionals in Ekman's research weren't specifically trained in lie detection. They were just expected to be good at it because of their job descriptions. The research revealed a big gap in training. In Australia, we have something worse. We have a genuine competence crisis. There's no national framework for training report writers. Many have no idea how to identify or assess coercive control. New research demonstrates harms to children who have been exposed to coercive control, yet many report writers are still operating on outdated models. The result? They routinely mislabel coercive control as quote conflict, and that's if they pick up on it at all. And here's the truly frightening part about the assessment process. A short form report typically involves one interview with each parent, maybe one to one and a half hours in length, typically. Perhaps 30 minute observations with each parent and children on average, and then that report writer also reading the submitted documentation, including affidavits. A full family report oftentimes isn't much better. It's often still just one interview per parent, but this time a little bit longer. Maybe slightly longer observations, and again reading of documents. For both reports, older children, typically children aged five years and over, so school age, may also be interviewed individually by the writer. But that's it. There are rarely follow up visits, there's certainly no unannounced observations, there's no seeing how parents respond when things don't go to plan. Think about it. Who's going to present badly in a single ninety minute interview? Maybe someone with severe emotion regulation issues. Maybe someone who literally cannot control themselves for an hour and a half. Perhaps someone actively experiencing a mental health crisis. Maybe someone with significant neurodevelopmental complexity and who will present well. Most people with basic social skills. Most people who understand that they're being assessed. Anyone who's prepared, even somewhat adequately for the meeting, and many perpetrators of coercive control. If someone can maintain an interpersonal relationship long enough to have children, there's a really good chance that they're going to be able to perform reasonably well in a 90 minute interview. So you come into that single interview, having provided your affidavit, perhaps there's subpoenaed material. All of this can show years of documented patterns, there might be text messages or other co-parenting communication showing boundary violations, evidence of continual undermining, there might be reports from other professionals, GPs, for example. But in the one on one interviews, the report writer may have anywhere between one to two hours to get their head around the interpersonal dynamics, and the other parent can sit there calmly, reasonably using all the right language, appearing cooperatively. Guess who the report favours? You show emotion when discussing safety concerns. That might get noted as quote, mother appeared anxious. You've got extensive documentation. That may be noted as quote, mother seems focused on past grievances. You've struggled to summarize years of coercive control in a few sentences. That might get noted as quote, mother unable to move forward. Meanwhile, your former partner is presenting as calm, measured, child focused, and willing to co-parent. Unfortunately, the system is designed to reward performance over patterns of abuse, presentation over truth. And when you add the competence crisis to the mix, report writers who genuinely don't know what coercive control looks like, who haven't been trained to assess it, who are operating on outdated, quote, high conflict divorce models, and let's not forget the ideology that prioritises maximum contact time with both parents, you get reports that completely miss what you're trying to show them. This is the Ted Bundy effect in full force. And if you want to understand this more deeply, including the five signs that it could be happening in your case, and practical strategies for documenting differently, I've created a comprehensive guide called the Ted Bundy Effect in Family Court, why professionals miss coercive control and what you can do about it. You can download it for free at my website Danielleblackcoaching.com.au Now understanding all of this brings us to the next question. What do you do when the family report has gotten it wrong? When do you make peace with the fact that you're headed to a final trial? Final trial is not at all like what you see on TV. There's no dramatic revelations, no Perry Mason moments where the truth suddenly becomes obvious to everyone. No Jack Nicholson explosive moments where people are being told that they just can't handle the truth. Here's what actually happens. Final trial in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia can run anywhere from one to five days, depending on the complexity of your case. Sometimes it's longer, but that's not common. Each party, so you and the other parent, is represented by your legal team, and that often includes a barrister. Your barrister is the one who will present your case, call the witnesses where needed, and cross-examine the other parent and their witnesses. The other parent's barrister does the same. The judge sits and listens, takes notes, might ask some questions, but the judge is not investigating. They're deciding based on what's presented to them. There are some things to understand. Number one, the evidence rules are pretty strict. Everything that you want the judge to consider must be properly admitted as evidence. You can't just say, quote, they did this. It is important to have documents, witnesses where possible, or your own testimony under oath during cross-examination. The family report is evidence. The other parent's affidavit is evidence. Copies of co-parenting messages that you've included in your affidavit are evidence. But things that you quote just know, or that quote, everyone knows, if they're not in the evidence, they don't exist for the judge. Number two, cross-examination can feel really intense. The other parent's barrister will cross-examine you. Their job can be to undermine your credibility, to find inconsistencies. Perhaps to attempt to make you look emotional or unreliable. It's not a conversation, it's not a mediation, it's adversarial questioning that's designed to poke holes in your case. Honestly, it's about as far from child focused as we can possibly get. Your job is to stay calm, to stick to the facts, and avoid getting drawn into reactive responses. Your capacity during cross-examination directly impacts your credibility and can directly impact the outcome. Number three, if you haven't come to consent on orders throughout the trial, which does happen in many cases, the decision will be left with the judge. After hearing all the evidence, the judge takes time to come to a decision. This can be months after the fact. But here's the critical thing. The judge is banned by the evidence that's been presented. If the family report says the other parent is cooperative and child focused, the judge might give that significant weight, even if you know it's wrong. If your evidence is dismissed as quote, normal post-separation conflict, that could be all the judge has to work with. Preparing for trial can take months, and the emotional toll is often enormous. You might be spending money that you don't have, taking time off work, living in a state of high stress and hypervigilance for months while the trial approaches. And at the end of it, there's no guarantee that the judge will say what you see. A final trial can enable you to present your evidence formally. It can enable your barrister to cross-examine the other parent, and honestly, if they've been managing their image fairly well up until that point, that can often be the point where things start to crumble. What a trial can't do is guarantee that the judge is going to understand the coercive control involved. A trial can't force the other parent to change. It can't undo the damage done by an inaccurate family report, although it can challenge the findings and the report writer can be cross-examined. A trial can't provide, quote, justice or validation or accountability in the sense that you might be seeking and hoping for. And it can't heal you or your kids. This is why the decision about whether or not to proceed to trial requires strategic thinking. Settlement negotiations happen before a trial in order to avoid trial, and it's also not uncommon for those offers and the back and forth negotiations to continue during the course of a final trial. Sometimes, coming to consent can be a more strategic choice, even if ultimately it feels unfair. If the family report's gotten it wrong, your hope at trial is that new evidence or effective cross-examination will shift the judge's perspective. So you really need to think carefully about whether proceeding to trial is the best situation for you. My team and I do help parents to increase their capacity in preparation for final trial. So there are options if you're currently struggling but want to keep pressing on. Trial can be the right strategic choice when the safety risk is significant and the offer from the other side really does not protect your kids. Going to trial can be the right choice when you've got strong evidence that the family report missed, documented patterns that have occurred since the report that was written or really were not taken into account by the report writer, perhaps third-party witnesses, perhaps evidence that contradicts the report's findings, perhaps a report that contradicted itself, and if you've got a skilled barrister who can effectively cross-examine the other parent, and also the report writer. Proceeding to trial can also be the right strategic choice when you believe that you do have the capacity to sustain the process, or are prepared to invest in things like quality one-on-one coaching to support you, when you've got the right legal representation, so a legal team that you trust, when you've got the financial resources or legal aid, when you've got emotional support, and when you've been building your capacity especially for this, or are committed to doing so. Coming to consent doesn't mean that you're giving up. Oftentimes it means that you're being strategic about where to invest your limited resources. Neither myself or my team give legal advice. Part of our role in helping clients is in supporting them to get clarity about their options, aligned with their capacity, their resources, the well-being of their children, all the things. If you're facing this decision, the post-separation parenting blueprint can help. The framework in the blueprint helps you to assess the actual risk to your children, your capacity in different domains. There's also a specific module in the blueprint that covers how to go about challenging parenting arrangements or parenting orders that aren't working, giving you an idea for how you might be able to go about things if you come to consent on orders now but need to change things later on. Here's something that most people don't talk about. Your capacity during trial directly impacts the outcome. You can have all the evidence in the world, the best evidence in the world, but if you fall apart during cross-examination, if you struggle to regulate your emotions, if you're looking angry or vengeful rather than protective, if you lose focus under pressure, or if you are reactive as opposed to responsive, you may undermine your own case. The judge is watching you, not just listening to your evidence, but watching how you present yourself, how you respond to difficult questions, whether you seem reasonable or reactive, your emotional state and regulation, and your credibility. Module 20 of the Blueprint also includes a resource about capacity for final trial. And that's not just, quote, here's what happens at final trial. It's all about how to regulate your nervous system in the months leading up to trial, how to prepare emotionally for cross-examination, how to stay grounded when your children's safety feels at stake, how to make strategic decisions from a place of clarity and not panic, and how to build resilience for the long game. Blueprint members have been telling me that they're coming back to this module and this resource multiple times as their trial date approaches. Because it's not just about learning the information once. The Blueprint is not a one and done course, it's a living resource, a living, evidence-based library. It enables you to build progressive capacity as the pressure of your situation increases. Also included in the capacity for final trial guide is information to help you build your baseline nervous system regulation, how to create sustainable preparation rhythms, how to manage decision fatigue, protect your energy, how to work with your legal team, prepare for cross-examination, the mental and emotional rehearsals, how to regulate in the courtroom, how to handle difficult moments, manage overwhelm, and stay clear and focused. It also covers after trial, the recovery and rebuilding phase, processing the outcome, supporting your kids, and long-term resilience. This guide is available as a bonus resource in module 20, but also available for purchase separately in the shop on my website. It's perfectly designed to work in conjunction with the information that's in module 16, growing your capacity. That module features meditation recordings, affirmation audios, and other nervous system regulation tools, specifically created for protective parents. Whether to settle or proceed to a final trial is ultimately a decision that only you can make. No one else is living your reality. No one knows the full context of your situation. No one else is going to be laying awake at night worrying about your kids. But here's what I want you to know. This decision is not a moral test. Choosing whether to settle, whether to negotiate, to come to agreement does not mean that you're weak or that you don't love your kids. Choosing to go to trial doesn't mean you're vindictive, controlling, not able to let go, or have in any way failed. It's a strategic decision about how to best protect your children, given the resources, evidence, and capacity that you have. Sometimes the most protective thing that you can do is to come to agreement and conserve your resources for the long game. And for other parents, the most protective thing that they can do is to fight, even when the odds might be stacked against them. Only you can determine what is true in your situation. To make this decision from a place of clarity, rather than one of fear or desperation, you need to realistically understand the system. You need to know what a trial can and cannot deliver, the limitations of family reports and other evidence, what the judge will take into account making a decision, and the odds that you're facing. You also need to honestly assess your evidence, what you have versus what you wish you had, how strong the evidence is, and whether or not the other evidence is strong enough to overcome a problematic family report. You also need clear-eyed view of your capacity, your financial resources. This includes your financial resources, your emotional reserves, your support systems, essentially your ability to sustain the process. And long term strategic thinking. Honestly, this really is a marathon, not a sprint, and I know that there are so many of you out there hearing me say that, and you're nodding. I know, I know you're exhausted. Part of this long-term strategic thinking includes thinking about what will serve your kids' well being in the years to come, not just the months to come. And how you'll be able to remain a functional, present, tuned in parent throughout. The Blueprint is designed to help you to develop all of these things. It's not a course that you work through once. It's a strategic resource library that you return to at different stages of your journey. Whether before separation, day one of separation, all the way through to a final trial, and beyond. Module 20 includes all of the legal considerations. Module 16 is growing capacity. You come back to the content you need when you need it. Final trial is one of the most demanding experiences that you'll face as a protective parent. The emotional intensity, the financial stress, the uncertainty, the high stakes. All of it can overwhelm even the most prepared parent. But here's what I want you to remember. Your capacity to navigate this process directly impacts the outcome. Building that capacity, learning to regulate your nervous system, make decisions from a place of clarity rather than panic, staying grounded when things feel overwhelming. It's not optional. It really is essential. Whether you choose to come to agreement and negotiate consent orders or proceed to trial, you need capacity. Capacity to handle difficult conversations with your legal team. Capacity to make strategic decisions under pressure. Capacity to show up for your kids even when you're feeling depleted. Capacity to sustain this journey for the long term. That's what we're here to help you build. If you're facing a trial decision, you need a complete framework for strategic decision making. You need nervous system regulation tools designed for family court stress. You need practical preparation guides for every stage of the trial process. And you need support from someone who knows exactly what it is that you're up against. The post separation parenting blueprint has all of that waiting for you. You can learn more at my website, Danielle Blackcoaching.com.au. And if you want the free guide on the Ted Bundy effect in family court, why professionals miss coercive control and what you can do about it, you can also get that by heading to the website. Thank you so much for joining me on another episode of the Post Separation Abuse Podcast. I look forward to chatting with you again soon.