This is a Chapter from my book, Catalogue of Concern with Forensic Custody Evaluations

Concern 12: Dark Personality Pathology

Dark personalities refer to a constellation of socially harmful traits that are subclinical—meaning they do not meet the criteria for a formal psychiatric diagnosis, but are well-documented in the research literature as a cluster of socially malevolent tendencies, including narcissistic, psychopathic, borderline traits, combined with Machiavellian manipulation and, in some cases, sadism. These traits commonly include interpersonal manipulation, lack of empathy, emotional detachment, callousness, and exploitative behavior.

Because individuals with dark personality traits often present with charm, confidence, or false victimhood, their underlying pathology is frequently missed or misinterpreted by professionals. Rather than appearing chaotic or overtly disturbed, they tend to come across as composed, persuasive, or morally aggrieved—effectively concealing a deeper psychological structure of exploitation and relational harm (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Furnham et al., 2013; Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015).

In high-conflict custody disputes, this personality constellation can manifest as vengeful retaliation, strategic lying, cruelty masked as righteousness, and the manipulation of both mental health professionals and the courts—a pattern supported by research linking Dark Triad traits to deception, judicial manipulation, and the exploitative use of children to harm the other parent (Clemente, Padilla-Racero, & Espinosa, 2020a; Giammarco & Vernon, 2014; Jonason et al., 2012; Ok et al., 2021).

Mental health evaluators—especially those unfamiliar with dark personality constructs—may be drawn into a false narrative constructed by the manipulative parent. When this occurs, the evaluator may inadvertently validate psychological abuse or contribute to the destruction of a healthy parent-child bond with the targeted parent. The court, in turn, is at risk of becoming a weapon in the hands of the high-conflict dark personality parent, unknowingly reinforcing child psychological harm and spousal abuse (Hardesty et al., 2016).

Unrecognized dark personality pathology poses a serious risk to the child’s psychological and emotional safety. When these dark traits go undetected, the Court may be misled into placing the child with an abusive parent, resulting in long-term harm to the child. This also undermines judicial integrity and raises serious ethical concerns for involved professionals (Miller et al., 2010; Plouffe et al., 2017).

What follows is a review of the core dark personality structures—the Dark Triad, the Vulnerable Dark Triad, and the Dark Tetrad. While differing in emotional presentation, each of these configurations is marked by chronic deceit, interpersonal manipulation, and a willingness to use others—often including one’s own children—as instruments of control and retaliation. These subclinical personality constellations have been empirically linked to virtuous victim signaling, judicial manipulation, and the coercive exploitation of children in custody disputes (Ok et al., 2021; Plouffe et al., 2017).

When unrecognized by mental health professionals or the Court, these patterns of manipulative deceit, false victimhood, emotional coercion, and retaliatory control—hallmarks of dark personality pathology—pose a serious risk to the child’s psychological safety, the accuracy of judicial outcomes, and the ethical integrity of the legal process.

The Dark Triad

The Dark Triad, first introduced by Paulhus and Williams (2002), refers to a trio of subclinical personality traits associated with social malevolence:

Narcissism – a grandiose sense of self-importance, entitlement, and superiority;

Machiavellianism – strategic manipulation, deceitfulness, and a focus on self-interest and control;

Psychopathy – emotional coldness, impulsivity, callousness, and lack of empathy or remorse.

The Dark Triad is a well-established construct in personality psychology describing three interrelated but distinct subclinical traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. First conceptualized by Paulhus and Williams (2002), these traits have been consistently linked to socially malevolent behavior, including interpersonal exploitation, deceit, and emotional harm (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jonason et al., 2012).

Although these traits do not typically reach diagnostic thresholds for formal psychiatric disorders, the presence of Dark Triad traits in high-stakes relationship contexts—such as court-involved custody litigation—can have serious and long-lasting consequences for both the child and the court system (Clemente, Padilla-Racero, & Espinosa, 2020b; Ok et al., 2021). These consequences can include:

• Psychological harm to the child, who may be subjected to coercive triangulation, emotional manipulation, or subtle psychological control—resulting in attachment damage, identity confusion, and long-term emotional dysregulation (Barber, 2002; Giammarco & Vernon, 2014).

• Destruction of the healthy parent-child relationship, as the Dark Triad parent often seeks to dominate or erase the co-parent’s role through false allegations, narrative control, and exploitation of the child’s loyalty or dependency (Brunell et al., 2008).

• Distortion of judicial outcomes, as courts may be misled by the superficial charm, false moral posturing, or feigned victimhood of the manipulative parent—potentially leading to court orders that place the child in the care of the psychologically more dangerous parent (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010).

• Institutional betrayal, where the legal and mental health systems unintentionally reinforce abuse dynamics by validating the manipulator’s narrative and punishing the protective targeted parent, eroding the child’s trust in adults and authority systems (Smith & Freyd, 2013).

• Compromised professional ethics, as evaluators and legal actors who lack training in subclinical dark personality structures may unwittingly participate in the psychological abuse—violating core ethical mandates to protect vulnerable populations and do no harm (Fariña, Arce, & Novo, 2021).

The danger lies not in overt pathology, but in the hidden nature of the threat: individuals with Dark Triad traits often present as composed, persuasive, and morally justified—framing their actions as virtuous or protective, even when they are manipulative or harmful (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Without explicit recognition of these traits and their impacts within a family context, the system designed to protect the child may instead be weaponized to enact lasting psychological harm.

Components of the Dark Triad

The Dark Triad consists of three distinct but overlapping personality traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—each contributing in unique ways to manipulative, exploitative, or harmful behavior in interpersonal and legal contexts. While these traits often remain below diagnostic thresholds, they can significantly disrupt relational systems, particularly in high-conflict family dynamics where impression management, control, and emotional exploitation are common.

Narcissism

Characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, hypersensitivity to criticism, and an inflated self-concept. Although narcissists may appear confident or charismatic, they frequently externalize blame, seek validation through exploitation of others, and respond to perceived threats with rage or moralistic posturing (Miller et al., 2010).

Machiavellianism

Defined by cold, strategic manipulation, deceitfulness, and calculated interpersonal control. Individuals high in Machiavellian traits tend to be socially skilled and pragmatic, often using charm or constructed narratives to gain advantage—particularly within institutional settings such as the courts, where appearances of reasonableness or victimhood can be leveraged (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

Psychopathy (Primarily Factor I)

Marked by callousness, lack of empathy, shallow affect, impulsivity, and thrill-seeking behavior. In family settings, psychopathic traits may not manifest as overt violence but instead as a chilling emotional detachment—evidenced by a lack of remorse, emotional cruelty, and coercive indifference to the psychological needs of a child (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2023).

Relevance in Family Court

Dark Triad personalities are particularly dangerous in family court contexts because their social presentation is often convincing—articulate, composed, even “reasonable.” Their cruelty is not always overt. Instead, it is masked by charm, moral righteousness, or calculated victim signaling, creating false narratives of competence, protection, or persecution (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). These individuals are often skilled at manipulating evaluators, attorneys, and even judges, gaining credibility while covertly enacting psychological harm on the co-parent and the child.

Without a working understanding of subclinical dark personality pathology, mental health professionals may misinterpret manipulative or exploitative behavior as genuine concern—or worse, adopt the false narrative of the Dark Triad parent and mistakenly pathologize the healthy parent. This dynamic can invert the protective logic of the court system, placing children with the more psychologically dangerous parent (Fariña et al., 2021; Ok et al., 2021).

The Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT)

The Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT) is a research-identified personality constellation that expands upon the original Dark Triad framework by incorporating traits of emotional fragility, interpersonal dependency, and chronic emotional dysregulation. Unlike the classic Dark Triad—which emphasizes cold, calculated manipulation—the VDT reflects a more emotionally volatile presentation. Despite its distressed or unstable appearance, the VDT can still produce significant interpersonal harm, particularly in close relationships such as those within the family system (Miller et al., 2010; Kealy & Ogrodniczuk, 2014).

As described by Bonfá-Araujo and Schermer (2024):

From Bonfá-Araujo and Schermer: “The Vulnerable Dark Triad… combines socially undesirable behavior and emotionally vulnerable traits. This interplay of vulnerable behaviors can lead to complex patterns of emotional instability, a fragile sense of self, relationship difficulties, and manipulative tendencies.” (p. 1)

This constellation typically includes:

Vulnerable narcissism – marked by hypersensitivity to criticism, feelings of insecurity and inferiority masked by self-pity or entitlement, and a chronic need for external validation (Miller et al., 2010; Pincus & Roche, 2011);

Borderline personality traits – characterized by fear of abandonment, affective instability, black-and-white thinking in relationships, and a pattern of idealization followed by devaluation (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Fonagy & Luyten, 2009);

Factor II psychopathy – reflecting impulsivity, poor behavioral regulation, externalized blame, and a pervasive lack of responsibility, often accompanied by shallow empathy (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006; Skeem et al., 2011).

While individuals with traditional Dark Triad traits may manipulate with cold intentionality, those within the VDT constellation manipulate through emotional reactivity, dependency, and implicit coercion, often without overt planning. The psychological volatility and emotional distress displayed by the VDT parent are often genuine—rooted in a fragile self-concept, unstable affect regulation, and unresolved relational trauma (Kealy et al., 2012). However, this emotional suffering does not mitigate the destructive impact of their behavior. In fact, it can amplify it.

When parents with Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT) traits form coalitions with their children—often under the guise of being ‘protective’ or ‘emotionally attuned’—the relational dynamic can shift into a pattern of psychological enmeshment, where appropriate parent-child boundaries dissolve (Minuchin, 1974; Barber, 2002). The child may begin to take on the emotional burdens of the parent, becoming a source of validation, regulation, or even defense against the other parent. This alliance is not grounded in the child’s developmental needs but in the psychological instability of the parent, who may unconsciously manipulate the child’s perceptions to mirror their own fears, grievances, or abandonment anxieties (Fonagy & Target, 1997; Lyons-Ruth et al., 2006).

As a result, the child can become trapped in a distorted role with the VDT parent, experiencing loyalty conflicts, inappropriate emotional closeness with the allied parent, and a false sense of danger or betrayal from the other parent. This misalignment can manifest as role confusion—where the child begins to act as a surrogate partner, protector, or emotional caretaker for the distressed parent—and as unjustified rejection or fear of the targeted parent. These patterns are psychologically corrosive and are often misinterpreted by evaluators as signs of genuine harm by the targeted parent or as a normal child preference, rather than indicators of covert psychological abuse through relational manipulation (Dallam, 2020; Smith & Freyd, 2013).

When these VDT parents engage mental health professionals, their distress can elicit sympathy, leading evaluators to adopt the parent’s narrative uncritically. This misalignment—driven by emotional contagion rather than objective analysis—can result in serious harm to the child’s attachment system and the unjust marginalization of a healthy parent (Walker et al., 2011).

Relevance in Family Court:

In the family court context, parents exhibiting traits of the Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT) present a unique and serious challenge. Unlike overtly aggressive or hostile individuals, VDT parents frequently appear emotionally fragile, deeply affected by the separation, and intensely bonded to the child. This presentation can elicit empathy and support from mental health professionals and the Court, particularly when it is framed as concern for the child’s safety or well-being. Clemente, M., Padilla-Racero, D., & Espinosa, P. (2020b).

Because VDT parents often appear to be “protective” or “traumatized,” their role in shaping or inducing the child’s symptoms is frequently obscured. The evaluator may perceive the parent’s anxiety and distress as evidence of authentic concern, rather than as manifestations of emotional dysregulation and unresolved attachment trauma (Lyons-Ruth, 2003). When the child begins to exhibit rejection, fear, or hostility toward the other parent, this is often interpreted as a response to actual harm—rather than the result of psychological enmeshment, role confusion, or a delusional belief system shared with the emotionally dysregulated parent.

This confusion is particularly dangerous in cases where a shared persecutory delusion develops between the parent and child, in which the child adopts and reflects the parent’s false belief that the other parent is dangerous or harmful (Sar et al., 2010; Silberg, 2013). These belief systems can emerge without any external evidence of abuse, and yet can powerfully shape the child’s perception, memory, and behavior. Because the parent’s vulnerability is real—but the beliefs are false—evaluators and courts unfamiliar with VDT dynamics may be drawn into the delusional structure and lend institutional validation to a pattern of psychological abuse.

When this occurs, the risk to the child is severe: the child may be left emotionally enmeshed, developmentally dysregulated, and cut off from a loving and appropriate parent. At the same time, the court system may inadvertently reinforce and institutionalize the abusive dynamics by accepting the distorted narratives as reality. Without specialized knowledge of VDT structures, courts and mental health professionals may misclassify psychological abuse as legitimate parental protection—resulting in judicial outcomes that directly undermine the child’s psychological safety and long-term wellbeing.

The Dark Tetrad

The Dark Tetrad expands upon the original Dark Triad by adding a fourth and particularly dangerous personality trait: sadism. While the Dark Triad includes narcissism (entitlement and self-centeredness), Machiavellianism (strategic manipulation), and psychopathy (emotional coldness and impulsive cruelty), the addition of sadism introduces a qualitatively different dimension—the active enjoyment in causing suffering in others (Paulhus, 2014; Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus, 2013).

Sadism, in this context, refers not simply to indifference to the suffering of others, but to a psychological disposition toward deriving satisfaction from inflicting emotional, psychological, or physical pain. This can take the form of retaliatory behaviors, deliberate cruelty, or the strategic use of suffering as a tool of control (Reidy et al., 2011; Plouffe et al., 2017). In interpersonal relationships—and especially in high-conflict custody litigation—this may manifest as repeated legal attacks, emotionally abusive tactics, or manipulative behaviors designed to provoke distress in the targeted parent or child (Clemente, Padilla-Racero, & Espinosa, 2020a; Dallam, 2020).

Relevance in Family Court

The Dark Tetrad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism—represents the most severe and socially destructive end of the dark personality spectrum. While the first three traits involve grandiosity, manipulation, and callous disregard for others, the addition of sadism introduces a more dangerous dimension: the active enjoyment of causing harm (Buckels et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2017). This does not merely amplify interpersonal dysfunction—it weaponizes it.

In the family court setting, the Dark Tetrad is particularly dangerous because it cloaks malevolent intent behind socially acceptable or even virtuous narratives. A parent high in sadistic traits may not simply seek to “win” a custody battle but may derive psychological gratification from harming the other parent—through legal domination, emotional cruelty, or the strategic use of the child as a weapon (Giammarco & Vernon, 2014; Fariña et al., 2021). These acts of psychological violence are rarely overt. They are often masked by presentations of moral righteousness, false victimhood, or parental concern, making them especially difficult for courts and evaluators to detect (Walker et al., 2011; Smith & Freyd, 2013).

Unlike the cold calculation of Machiavellianism or the emotional detachment of psychopathy, sadism introduces a self-reinforcing dynamic: the more emotional suffering the parent can cause—whether by tormenting the other parent through litigation, inducing fear or rejection in the child, or damaging the bond between the child and the targeted parent—the greater the internal gratification (Paulhus, 2014; Reidy et al., 2011). This pattern reflects not merely manipulation, but a deeper drive to control and harm others for personal satisfaction.

This pattern reflects not merely manipulation, but a deeper psychological drive to control and harm others for personal satisfaction. While manipulative parents may distort facts or mislead professionals to gain advantage—such as securing custody or sympathy—sadistic individuals go further. They do not simply seek to “win” in court; they seek to harm the targeted parent and child. Sadism, as a personality trait, involves deriving emotional gratification from the suffering of others (Plouffe et al., 2017; Buckels et al., 2013). In the family court context, this can manifest as a parent who appears calm and composed while intentionally inflicting distress on the other parent, prolonging litigation as a form of punishment, or encouraging the child’s rejection of the other parent not solely for control—but to cause emotional injury (Clemente et al., 2020a; Dallam, 2020).

This behavior is not reactive, defensive, or impulsive. It is calculated, cruel, and psychologically self-rewarding. The sadistic parent often uses formal institutions—such as the legal system, mental health services, or educational structures—not to resolve conflict, but to entrench it. They may file repeated legal motions designed to harass, co-opt therapeutic language to isolate the child from the other parent, or construct false narratives of victimhood to rationalize their punitive actions (Smith & Freyd, 2013; Fariña et al., 2021).

The result is a profoundly abusive system of coercion and control in which the very institutions designed to protect vulnerable children and families are turned into instruments of harm. Courts may inadvertently reinforce the abuse through well-intentioned but misguided custody decisions. Therapists may become entangled in the parent’s distorted narrative and unknowingly support the severing of a healthy parent-child bond. Schools and social service agencies may be pulled into the punitive dynamic, enforcing the sadistic parent’s agenda under the mistaken belief that they are protecting the child (Walker et al., 2011; Skeem et al., 2011).

Family courts are especially vulnerable to this form of abuse because the legal process itself can become a stage for sadistic gratification. Delay, confusion, and procedural domination become tools of psychological warfare. This is not standard post-separation conflict. It is a structurally abusive pattern driven by a personality constellation that seeks control through cruelty and legitimacy through manipulation. If sadism as a clinical concept is not understood, identified, and contained within the court process, the legal system may inadvertently become an instrument of abuse itself—placing children at direct risk and compromising the ethical foundation of judicial decision-making (Fonagy & Target, 1997; Sar, Akyüz, & Doğan, 2010).

For these reasons, the Dark Tetrad must be recognized as a distinct and urgent threat in high-conflict custody disputes. Its failure to be identified poses a serious risk to child psychological safety, judicial integrity, and the ethical responsibilities of all professionals involved (Silberg, 2013; Skeem et al., 2011).

Reference List

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Barber, B. K. (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10422-000

Bonfá-Araujo, B., & Schermer, J. A. (2024). The Vulnerable Dark Triad: A multidimensional analysis of socially aversive and emotionally unstable traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 213, 112020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112020

Book, A., Visser, B. A., & Volk, A. A. (2023). The mask of sanity revisited: Psychopathy and family dynamics in subclinical contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 205, 112042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112042

Brunell, A. B., Staats, S., Barden, J., & Hupp, J. M. (2008). Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.013

Clemente, M., Padilla-Racero, D., & Espinosa, P. (2020a). The dark triad and the detection of parental judicial manipulation (PJM). Behavioral Sciences, 10(3), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10030088

Clemente, M., Padilla-Racero, D., & Espinosa, P. (2020b). The Dark Triad and manipulation in family courts: A personality analysis of child custody litigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01807

Dallam, S. J. (2020). The long shadow of “parental alienation theory” in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 17(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2020.1794496

Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Novo, M. (2021). Are family courts immune to bias? Judicial decision-making in parental disputes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(5), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1838857

Fariña, F., Redondo, L., Seijo, D., Arce, R., & Novo, M. (2021). Assessing victim credibility in child custody disputes: Parental alienation versus intimate partner violence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042091

Fonagy, P., & Luyten, P. (2009). A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1355–1381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990198

Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497001399

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018

Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). Interpersonal manipulation in everyday life: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.005

Hardesty, J. L., Haselschwerdt, M. L., & Johnson, M. P. (2016). Domestic violence and child custody: A call for safety-focused, differentiated assessment and intervention. Family Court Review, 54(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12213

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Teicher, E. A., & Baruffi, S. A. (2010). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 24(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.821

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5–6), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.007

Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008

Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). Guilford Press.

Kealy, D., & Ogrodniczuk, J. S. (2014). Pathological narcissism and the severity, variability, and instability of depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62, 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.031

Kealy, D., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Joyce, A. S. (2012). Narcissistic personality disorder and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of dysfunctional attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 800–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008

Lyons-Ruth, K. (2003). Dissociation and the parent–infant dialogue: A longitudinal perspective from attachment research. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 51(3), 883–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651030510030901

Lyons-Ruth, K., Yellin, C., Melnick, S., & Atwood, G. (2006). Expanding the concept of unresolved mental states: Hostile/helpless states of mind on the Adult Attachment Interview are associated with disrupted mother–infant communication and infant disorganization. Development and Psychopathology, 17(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050027

Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133–155). Guilford Press.

Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 535–556). Oxford University Press.

Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x

Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM–5 pathological personality trait model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.513306

Miller, R. B., Anderson, S., & Keala, D. K. (2010). Is the quality of mothering, fathering, and coparenting uniquely associated with children’s adjustment postdivorce? Journal of Family Issues, 32(4), 452–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10396661

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

Ok, E., Tokuyoshi, Y., Wenzel, M., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2021). Virtuous victimhood as a social influence strategy: The role of the Dark Triad in exploiting the moral reputations of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000323

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Pincus, A. L., & Roche, M. J. (2011). Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 31–40). John Wiley & Sons.

Plouffe, R. A., Saklofske, D. H., & Smith, M. M. (2017). The Dark Tetrad and humor styles: Adaptive and maladaptive features. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.033

Sar, V., Akyüz, G., & Doğan, O. (2010). Prevalence of dissociative disorders among women in the general population. Psychiatry Research, 149(1–3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2006.01.005

Silberg, J. L. (2013). The child survivor: Healing development trauma and dissociation. Routledge.

Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21778

Walker, E. C., Sheffield, R. A., Larson, C., & Torkelson, T. (2011). Reducing bias and errors in child sexual abuse investigations: The importance of the multidisciplinary team approach. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20(6), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2011.622354