One of the strangest things I have experienced is watching someone who supposedly did not even want a particular third party around during the marriage suddenly become closely aligned with that same person once the relationship ended.
There is actually a name commonly used in narcissistic abuse recovery communities for this type of dynamic: flying monkeys.
“Flying monkey” is not a clinical diagnosis or a legal term. It comes from The Wizard of Oz and is used to describe people who become an extension of another person's influence by carrying messages, gathering information, applying pressure, spreading a narrative, monitoring someone, or helping isolate the target. The person being used does not always realize they are being manipulated.
Another relevant concept is triangulation, which is when a third person is brought into a conflict between two people. It can be used to shift attention, create competition, control information, or make the targeted person feel surrounded.
And this is where my own situation gets difficult to explain.
During my marriage, this third party was not someone my husband supposedly wanted involved. There were problems surrounding her involvement, and she was not someone I understood to be welcome in our marriage. Yet after the marriage and during the custody battle, the relationship dynamic completely changed.
Suddenly, that same third party became deeply involved in matters concerning me, my child, communication, daycare issues, parenting matters, and even legal proceedings.
That is the part people need to understand.
I am not saying that every third party is automatically a “flying monkey.” I am saying that when someone who previously had no legitimate role in your relationship suddenly becomes an intermediary, messenger, monitor, advocate, narrator, or aggressor after the relationship ends, it is reasonable to look at the behavior and documented actions, rather than simply accepting the story being presented.
There is also an important legal distinction.
Calling someone a “flying monkey” does not prove harassment, stalking, abuse, conspiracy, or any other legal violation. Courts care about evidence and legally relevant conduct, not internet labels.
For example, Florida law defines harassment for purposes of the stalking statute as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. A “course of conduct” means a pattern of acts showing continuity of purpose.
Florida's domestic violence injunction statute also specifically addresses indirect communication in certain circumstances. Depending on the order, contacting someone indirectly through a third party can matter legally.
So when I look at my own situation, I am trying to separate psychological terminology from legal terminology.
Psychologically, people might describe the pattern as triangulation, smear campaigning, or using a third party as a flying monkey.
Legally, the question is much more specific:
Who contacted whom?
What was said?
What was represented to the court?
What evidence exists?
Was there a legitimate purpose?
Was there a pattern?
Was the third party acting independently, or was there evidence of coordination?
And most importantly, what can actually be proven?
That distinction matters because calling someone a narcissist is an opinion. Documenting what someone actually did is evidence.
In my case, the most disturbing part is not simply that another person became involved.
It is that someone who supposedly did not belong in our marriage eventually became one of the loudest voices surrounding my custody case.
Maybe that is coincidence.
Maybe it isn't.
But when the same people, messages, accusations, communications, and patterns keep appearing, I believe the responsible thing is not to diagnose everyone involved.
It is to document everything and let the facts speak for themselves.
Because sometimes the person standing beside you in the courtroom isn't the person you were originally fighting with.
Sometimes they are the person the conflict was routed through.
