No Domestic Violence Restraining Order Based on Allegations of "Gaslighting"

"Lily accused Gunther of 'Gaslighting' (underscoring omitted) by denying he suffered from steroid-induced rages during their marriage and denying Lily's contributions to Gunther's career success."

From Shia v. Shia, decided Jan. 27 by the California Court of Appeal (Justice Helen Bendix, joined by Justices Gregory Weingart & Michelle Kim):

Lily Shia appeals from an order denying a domestic violence restraining order against respondent Gunther Shia, her ex-husband. Both parties are self-represented on appeal. Lily fails to show the family law court erred by declining to consider many of Lily's allegations of abuse on the basis that they already had been litigated and decided in Gunther's favor. We further hold Lily's remaining allegations are not supported by substantial evidence or were not properly before the family law court….

The decision is long and involves lots of allegations, but here's the one that struck me:

Lily accused Gunther of "Gaslighting" (underscoring omitted) by denying he suffered from steroid-induced rages during their marriage and denying Lily's contributions to Gunther's career success. {Gaslighting has been defined as "psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator."}

Lily argues gaslighting can constitute abuse because it causes her to question her own mental well-being and sanity. Lily does not dispute the family law court's conclusion that the gaslighting allegations predated February 19, 2016 and could not be relitigated.

Assuming arguendo Lily's gaslighting allegations concern Gunther's more recently denying his purported steroid-induced rages and Lily's contributions to his career success, we decline to hold that ex-spouses' denials of each other's accusations, without more, constitute psychological abuse meriting a restraining order.

Comments

[David Nieporent]

"Gaslighting" was a useful concept that has been degraded by over/misuse to refer to any lying. (As the VC comment threads routinely show.)

[Roger S]

The term is also misused to mean deliberately driving someone crazy. Going crazy is just a byproduct of things done with other motives.

[not guilty]

David is exactly right. Merriam-webster.com defines gaslighting as follows:

1:

psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

2:

the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting

The first definition is useful, descriptive and true to the cinematic origins of the term, The second has devolved into a general purpose insult.

The first definition has the benefit of requiring that the effort to "gaslight" actually succeed in causing the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories. The second definition has come to conflate unsuccessful attempts to "gaslight" with achieving the intended result, like awarding three points for a field goal attempt that fails to clear the goalposts.

[Drewski]

I tend to agree but of course that doesn't affect anything legally. If she could prove her accusations, it would just be a question of whether the behavior rose to the legal standard of abuse. Probably a provable pattern of gaslighting could sustain an emotional distress tort in some jurisdictions, but the elements of the tort won't care how loosely you used the term, just whether they've been met.

But yes, it's annoying when useful words or phrases get corrupted. Perhaps fittingly for the topic, I often think of language as akin to an abusive relationship: The people who care about it the least are the ones with the most power.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Your Honor, he's been abusing me!"
"No I haven't!"
"See?! He's abusing me right now!!!"

I can't believe the judge didn't buy this...

[Purple Martin]

It's possible to define the term, Gaslighting, so loosely that it covers any attempt to persuade, or so tightly as to apply only to the ignition of flammable vapor for purposes of illumination.

But as metaphor, the core element of gaslighting is falsely attempting to convince a person that they're denying reality—that is, that they're mentally ill (more broadly, they’re obviously, unarguably wrong in a debate over verifiable facts)—without openly saying You're Crazy.

What separates gaslighting from persuading or convincing, is the denial one is wrongfully trying to manipulate a person’s perception of actual reality. It isn’t gaslighting to counter a Q-Anon or 9/11 or chemtrails or MAGA fantasist with confirmable facts demonstrating their conspiracies are, indeed, fantasy.

[Dissojudge]

I just saw this VC post from several weeks ago that discussed Shia v. Shia . I don't quarrel with the substance of the post at all, but if you're going to comment on a California non-published appellate decision, please note that the discussed decision was non-published. That's because, unlike federal unpublished decisions that may not be binding precedent but can be cited (or so I recall), a California unpublished appellate decision definitely can't be cited or referenced by anyone (with the very limited exception of the litigants themselves if the case is remanded by the appellate court).

Cite an unpublished California appellate decision to a California judge and be prepared to have your head handed to you. See California Rules of Court Rule 8.1115.