Manipulation in a legal dispute is answered with a record, not with a diagnosis. Where an opponent twists agreements, withholds information or keeps escalating the conflict, what changes the outcome is documentation. Dutch courts decide on the facts that are stated and substantiated, and a party that shifts position, conceals documents or refuses to cooperate runs into rules designed for exactly that: the duty to present the relevant facts completely and truthfully, the right to demand inspection of specific documents, and the loss of a share in an asset that has been deliberately concealed. This article sets out how to recognise those patterns in a case, how to document them, and which procedural instruments Dutch law offers.
One thing first. We do not label opposing parties. Narcissism is a clinical term, and whether it applies to anyone is a question for a qualified professional, not for a law firm or a court. In a legal file the term has no meaning of its own: what counts is conduct that can be shown, and the consequences the law attaches to it. Readers who want the wider family law context will find it in our article on narcissists and the law, and the specific question of concealed assets is covered in narcissism and asset division.
What manipulation looks like in a case file
Manipulation in a legal dispute is recognisable by its effect on the file rather than by its psychology. Agreements that were made orally are denied or reinterpreted afterwards. Roles are reversed, so that the accusation you intended to make is made against you first. Financial information arrives incomplete, late or not at all: a bank account that is not mentioned, a bonus that is described as a loan, a business that suddenly makes no profit in the year of the divorce. Communication alternates between an intense stream of messages and complete silence, and requests from your lawyer go unanswered until a deadline has passed.
Inside proceedings the same pattern shows up as procedural friction: repeated requests for postponement, new points raised at the last moment, documents produced in fragments, complaints to third parties, and allegations that are serious but never made concrete. In cases involving children it often takes the form of shifting handover arrangements, informing the other parent late, or presenting the child as unwilling without any verifiable ground.
None of that is unusual and none of it is unmanageable, but it does require a different way of working. Where an ordinary dispute can be run on the merits, a case of this kind is run on the record: every agreement in writing, every deadline noted, every allegation answered with a document rather than with an emotion. That is not a personality contest; it is file management, and it is the part you control.
Why the label matters less than the evidence
Dutch civil procedure is built on what parties state and prove. The party who invokes legal consequences of alleged facts bears the burden of proving them, and the court is free in its assessment of the evidence submitted unless the law provides otherwise. An allegation about the other side character does not shift that burden and does not by itself carry weight; a set of e-mails showing that an agreement was made and then denied does.
Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure obliges parties to present the facts relevant to the decision completely and truthfully. Since the reform of the law of evidence that took effect on 1 January 2025, that duty has been extended: parties are expected to gather the information that can reasonably be obtained before proceedings are started, and the court may draw the conclusion it considers appropriate if a party fails to do so or presents the facts incompletely. That is the provision to invoke when the other side gives an incomplete picture, and it is far more effective than an argument about motives.
The same reform improved access to documents held by the other party. The right to inspect specific records, formerly known by its old article number, is now set out in articles 194 to 195a of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the threshold was lowered from a legitimate interest to a sufficient interest. Our articles on the new evidence rules in Dutch civil litigation and on the reformed right to inspect evidence explain how such a request is framed.
Building a record that holds up
Start from the assumption that what is not written down did not happen. Confirm oral agreements the same day by e-mail in neutral terms, keep the reply, and keep the absence of a reply as well. Route communication through one channel, and where children are involved consider a shared parenting communication tool or a single e-mail address used only for that purpose; it produces a chronological record that no one can edit afterwards. Keep a factual log with dates, times, what was agreed, what happened and who was present, and write it as you would want it read out: facts, not adjectives.
Financial documentation deserves the same discipline. Secure copies of joint bank statements, mortgage documents, pension statements, annual accounts and tax returns while you still have access to them lawfully, and note which documents exist even if you cannot obtain them, because a specific description is what makes an inspection request enforceable. A request for all correspondence over five years will fail; a request for the annual accounts and the current account statements of a named company for a named year will not.
There are limits, and crossing them damages your own position. Recording a conversation in which you take part yourself is not a criminal offence in the Netherlands, and such a recording can generally be used in civil proceedings, although the court weighs how it was obtained and whether it is necessary; recording conversations between others without their knowledge is a criminal offence. Reading someone else e-mail, logging into an account that is not yours or installing tracking software on another person device can amount to computer trespass and to a serious breach of privacy, and evidence obtained that way can turn a case about the other party conduct into a case about yours. When in doubt, ask before you act rather than afterwards.
Getting to the documents the other side will not give
Where information is withheld, the law provides several routes and they can be combined. An inspection request under the evidence provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure obliges a party to make specific documents available, provided the requesting party has a sufficient interest and identifies the documents with enough precision. Before or outside proceedings, preliminary measures can be requested: the hearing of witnesses, an expert report or an inspection, and since the 2025 reform several of those can be requested in a single application.
In matrimonial matters there is an additional and sharper rule. Spouses owe each other full disclosure about the composition of the community of property, and a spouse who deliberately conceals, hides or misappropriates an asset belonging to the community forfeits their share in that asset to the other spouse under article 3:194, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. That is not a symbolic sanction: the whole asset goes to the other party. Establishing intent requires evidence, which is why bank statements, transfers to family members and the timing of transactions matter more than any characterisation of the person.
Maintenance cases have their own dynamic. A party who does not provide income data cannot expect the court to assume the most favourable figure; the court can proceed on the basis of the information that is available and draw conclusions from a refusal to supply the rest. Where income is deliberately reduced or a business is used to depress the apparent capacity to pay, a maintenance calculation can be based on an earning capacity rather than on the declared income, provided the picture is substantiated. Our overview of child custody law in the Netherlands deals with the parallel questions about children.
Children: keeping the conflict away from the arrangement
Where parents cannot agree, the court sets the arrangements. The parenting plan is the starting point, and the more concrete it is, the less room there is for reinterpretation: fixed days and times, a handover location, a holiday scheme set out per year, rules on informing each other and a procedure for changes. Vague wording such as in mutual consultation is where conflicts are stored up.
If an arrangement is not complied with, there are enforcement routes. A court order can be reinforced with a penalty payment for each breach, and in urgent situations summary proceedings can produce a decision within weeks. Where the dispute is really about the position of the child rather than about the parents, the court can appoint a special representative for the child, and it can ask the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) to investigate and advise. A change in the division of parental authority or in the main residence is possible but exceptional, and it requires a substantiated picture over time rather than a single incident.
Allegations that one parent is turning the child against the other are common in these files and are taken seriously, but they need support: a record of cancelled contact, of messages, of what the child was told and when, and preferably an observation by a professional who has actually seen the family. An allegation without that support tends to backfire, because it invites the same scrutiny of the person making it.
When conduct becomes unlawful or criminal
Some behaviour goes beyond difficult and becomes actionable. Persistent unwanted contact, following, watching or repeatedly approaching a person can constitute stalking (belaging) under article 285b of the Criminal Code; it is an offence that is only prosecuted on complaint by the person concerned, so a formal complaint is required rather than a report alone. Threats are a separate offence, and a false accusation made to the authorities can be one as well. Where a false statement of fact is spread that damages your reputation, defamation and libel are punishable, and the same conduct can be unlawful in civil law and give rise to damages.
In civil proceedings a contact ban, an area ban or an order to remove online publications can be obtained in summary proceedings, reinforced by a penalty payment. In situations of domestic violence the mayor can impose a temporary home exclusion order on the person causing the threat, which creates immediate breathing space independently of any divorce proceedings; Veilig Thuis is the point of contact for advice and reports. Where proceedings themselves are used as a weapon, a claim that is manifestly without foundation can amount to misuse of procedural law, which can lead to an order to pay the actual costs of the proceedings rather than the standard fixed amounts.
A practical warning about social media applies to both sides: posting about the other parent, the case or the children can be unlawful, can be used in evidence and can affect what a court thinks of your judgement. The safest rule during proceedings is to publish nothing about the conflict at all.
Running the procedure: delay, mediation and costs
Delay is the tactic clients complain about most, and it is also the one the court is best equipped to handle. Terms for filing a defence are set by the court, extensions are not unlimited, and documents produced too late can be disregarded. Where a decision cannot wait, provisional measures in divorce proceedings can settle the use of the home, the residence of the children and provisional maintenance within a short time, and in other disputes summary proceedings serve the same purpose. Asking for those measures early is usually cheaper than absorbing months of uncertainty.
Mediation is valuable where both parties genuinely want a workable arrangement and can negotiate on a reasonably equal footing. Where one party uses the process to gather information, to postpone, or to renegotiate points that were already settled, mediation becomes an expensive way of losing time, and the court route is the appropriate one. That assessment should be made deliberately at the start and revisited once, rather than left to drift.
Costs deserve a realistic conversation at the outset. A file that has to be built document by document costs more than one that runs on agreement, and the standard cost order in Dutch proceedings covers only part of the actual expense. That is a reason to be selective: pursue the points that change the outcome, record the rest, and avoid the temptation to answer every provocation with a letter.
What to do now
Dealing with manipulation in a legal dispute starts with the record. Put it in order first: a factual log, written confirmation of every agreement, a single communication channel and a complete set of the financial documents you can lawfully obtain. Note precisely which documents you know exist but do not have, because that list becomes an inspection request. Decide, with your lawyer, which two or three points actually determine the outcome, and build the file around those rather than around everything that has happened.
Then take care of the other track. Keep a professional you trust involved for your own wellbeing, whether a general practitioner or a counsellor; in situations of violence or intimidation, Veilig Thuis and the police are the right addresses, and a lawyer can act quickly alongside them. Ask a trusted person to read important messages before you send them. None of this is a legal instrument, but it is what keeps a long procedure survivable and keeps the correspondence usable as evidence.
Law & More assists clients in family and civil disputes in which the other party withholds information, denies agreements or uses proceedings to apply pressure. We work on the file: securing evidence, requesting inspection of documents, applying for provisional measures and, where necessary, obtaining a contact or area ban. We act for Dutch and international clients from our offices in Eindhoven and Amsterdam. Please contact us if you would like your position assessed.
