Coercive Control Is a Parenting Issue: Why Family Court Must Put Safety Before Presumptions

JSH LAW · DOMESTIC ABUSE, PARENTING & CHILD WELFARE

By Jessica Susan Hill · England and Wales · Law and sources checked 10 November 2026

Can a coercively controlling parent be treated as a good parent by the Family Court? There is no statute declaring abusive parents to be good parents. The current Children Act presumption concerns the benefit of parental involvement, subject to qualifications; it does not require equal time or override welfare. Courts must assess domestic abuse and its consequences. The danger arises when “a bad partner but a good parent” becomes a shortcut which avoids that assessment.

This guide explains the law, the case for reform and how a litigant in person can present a coercive-control case. The same child-focused scrutiny applies to fathers and mothers. Much of the research concerns abuse of women by men; that evidence should be acknowledged without making a parent’s sex a substitute for examining their behaviour.

1. What does the Children Act actually presume?

Children Act 1989, section 1 makes the child’s welfare paramount. Section 1(2A) creates a rebuttable presumption that involvement of a qualifying parent will further welfare in specified proceedings. Section 1(2B) permits direct or indirect involvement and prescribes no division of time.

The qualification in section 1(6) matters: a parent must be capable of involvement without putting the child at risk of harm. The provision also specifies when that capability is to be assumed, referring to evidence of risk whatever the form of involvement. That is a more exact statutory structure than “all parents are entitled to contact”.

Keep two questions separate: does the presumption apply or stand rebutted, and what particular arrangement is safe and beneficial? Even where some involvement is appropriate, it does not follow that unsupervised visits, overnight stays or equal care are appropriate. The welfare checklist includes harm and parental capacity. Section 1(5) also requires the court to consider whether making an order is better for the child than making none.

Domestic abuse does not require a physical assault

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, sections 1–3 includes controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse and psychological or emotional abuse. Under Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 3, children who see, hear or experience the effects of abuse, and have the required relationship to the adults, are recognised as victims for the Act’s purposes. “The child was not hit” therefore leaves much of the relevant inquiry unanswered.

The criminal offence is a different legal question

Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76 creates a criminal offence with defined elements, including repeated or continuous behaviour and a serious effect. The amendment effective from 5 April 2023 extended its reach to qualifying post-separation behaviour without cohabitation; it is not retrospective. The CPS: controlling or coercive behaviour prosecution guidance explains the distinction.

A family judge does not need a criminal conviction before making a civil finding or addressing risk. Nor does a family finding amount to a conviction. Importing the criminal offence’s requirements as a gateway to every family-court safeguarding decision would confuse the different tasks.

2. Why coercive control is a parenting issue

Parenting is more than being affectionate during an observed visit, buying presents or attending a school event. It also involves the conditions an adult creates around a child: whether they can sleep, learn, seek comfort, maintain relationships and express disagreement without fear.

Research by Emma Katz: Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives, 2022 examines children and mothers as people whose lives can both be constrained by coercive control. Her work moves beyond counting incidents of physical violence to consider the restrictions imposed on ordinary life. Evan Stark: The Coercive Control of Children, 2023 similarly directs attention to coercion affecting children themselves.

JSH Law’s analysis: where a parent controls money needed for the child, threatens the child’s carer, uses the child to obtain information, or punishes affection for the other parent, the behaviour belongs inside the parenting assessment. Calling it an adult relationship problem does not remove its effects.

This does not mean every disagreement about money, communication or contact is coercive control. Context, repetition, the restriction of another person’s choices and the evidence of consequences matter. An allegation must be tested fairly. Protective behaviour must also be examined in its context rather than automatically labelled hostility.

Look at the whole week, not only the contact session

A child may enjoy an activity with a parent and still experience fear, pressure or disruption around that relationship. Conversely, distress surrounding separation or transitions does not by itself prove abuse. The useful inquiry is specific: what happens before, during and after contact, what other explanations are possible, and what evidence supports each explanation?

Ask what has changed in the child’s life. Can they speak freely? Are they being asked to carry messages or keep secrets? Has an adult restricted friendships, healthcare, school activities or support from relatives? Identify what you observed, what the child actually said and what a professional independently recorded. Do not turn a possibility into a finding.

3. Why repeal is justified—and why it will not be enough

The Ministry of Justice: Harm Panel report and literature review, 2020 drew on more than 1,200 responses as well as group discussions. The associated Hunter, Trinder and Burton: Harm Panel research identified systemic barriers including a pro-contact culture, resource constraints, adversarial processes and agencies working in isolation. This is substantial evidence about experiences and institutional problems, not a random-sample estimate of how often every court makes an unsafe order.

The Ministry of Justice: presumption of parental involvement review, 2025 examined how the presumption operates. In the Ministerial statement announcing repeal, 22 October 2025, the Government identified it as one contributor to a wider pro-contact culture, not the sole or main cause. That supports a measured argument for removing an unhelpful starting assumption while improving decision-making itself.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner: Everyday Business, 2025 used 298 concluded case files from three court sites alongside observations and interviews. It provides detailed evidence about practice and continuing harm. Its design matters: a three-site study cannot establish the outcome of a particular case or be treated as a national census of proven abuse. Our analysis of the 87% and 4% findings explains those distinctions.

The strongest objection to repeal is that safe relationships with both parents matter, including for families arranging their lives outside court. That concern deserves an answer. Supporting repeal does not require treating a safe parent as disposable. A welfare inquiry can protect valuable relationships while examining evidence of harm without a starting presumption in their favour. Repeal would not create an automatic no-contact rule or reverse the burden of proving allegations.

Our position is that the reform should make reasoning clearer: identify the child’s needs and the actual behaviour, determine material disputed facts fairly, assess risk and benefit, then explain the arrangement. Removing words from a statute will achieve little if reports and orders continue to treat coercive control as irrelevant to parenting.

4. Which authorities help in a coercive-control case?

Use authorities to explain a specific decision the court needs to make. A long list of case names is less useful than a short proposition, the relevant paragraph and the evidence to which it applies.

The historical foundation includes Re L; Re V; Re M; Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334, discussed at paragraph 24 of Re H-N. The modern task extends beyond physical violence to coercive patterns. Read current legislation, practice directions and later appellate guidance together.

Practice Direction 12J: the working framework

Practice Direction 12J applies where abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise indicated. Paragraphs 16–19 address necessary fact-finding and reasons. Paragraph 25 restricts interim arrangements where facts remain unresolved: the court must be satisfied about the child’s interests and absence of unmanageable risk to the child or other parent.

After abuse is established, paragraphs 35–37 require welfare and safety analysis, including consequences for the child and resident parent. Paragraph 36 addresses safety before, during and after contact and protection from further abuse. Paragraph 40 requires reasons. These safeguards already exist; they should not be postponed until legislative reform.

5. How to prepare your case against a coercively controlling ex-partner

You do not need to prove a psychological diagnosis. You need to help the court understand the behaviour, the evidence, the child’s experience and the decision required. The following is a JSH Law preparation framework, not a statutory test or a replacement for directions in your case.

Step 1: identify the immediate decision and any urgent risk

Start with the latest sealed order, the next hearing notice and the current deadlines. Is the immediate question interim contact, disputed facts, a welfare report, variation of a final order or protection from further applications? State the order you seek and why. Avoid asking the judge to resolve the entire history when a narrower decision is listed.

If anyone is in immediate danger, call 999 in the UK. Seek urgent specialist advice about protective steps where needed. An application does not itself suspend an existing order; neither should an urgent safety concern be left until a routine hearing simply because an order exists.

Step 2: use the right forms and protect contact details

• HMCTS: Form C1A records allegations of harm or responses to them alongside the relevant application or response. It is not itself an injunction or an order stopping contact.
• HMCTS: Form C100 is used for relevant section 8 applications, including variation or discharge. Check permission requirements and the applicable MIAM requirements or exemptions.
• HMCTS: Form C2 can be used for applications for orders or directions within existing proceedings. The correct route depends on what you are asking for.
• HMCTS: Form C8 is used to seek confidentiality for contact details. Check statements, exhibits and attachments too: a protected address can be inadvertently disclosed elsewhere.

Follow the court’s directions and current local procedure. The JSH Law C1A guide provides a fuller explanation.

Step 3: organise a pattern, with sources and limits

Prepare a short narrative of the relationship and a source-linked chronology. Group related behaviour where that helps explain the pattern, while retaining dates and concrete examples. Follow any ordered schedule format; if it obscures the alleged pattern, ask for directions about a narrative statement or thematic structure.

Keep original messages and full conversations. A selected screenshot may need surrounding context. Your own evidence is evidence; corroboration can assist but is not a universal prerequisite. A police log proves that information was recorded, not automatically that every reported event occurred. Preserve the difference between observation, disclosure, allegation, professional opinion, admission and finding.

Do not obtain records through unauthorised access to an ex-partner’s accounts. Identify specific missing police, medical or school material and ask for the appropriate disclosure direction where necessary. Avoid indiscriminate demands for every record ever created.

Step 4: explain why disputed facts need deciding

Following K v K, connect the proposed findings to the welfare decision. For example: “If the alleged threats and monitoring occurred, handover and communication arrangements need a different assessment. The dispute therefore affects whether the proposed interim arrangement can operate safely.”

Explain why admissions, existing findings or other evidence do not already provide a sufficient basis. A separate hearing is not always necessary. Ask for the decision and reasons to be recorded. If the court refuses a hearing, obtain the order and reasons promptly and seek regulated legal advice about any challenge; a complaint is not a substitute for an appeal.

Step 5: make the child’s experience visible

Record spontaneous words accurately, with the date, setting and who was present. Distinguish those words from your interpretation. Do not repeatedly question the child, rehearse an account or ask them to choose a parent.

For a Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru assessment, identify the unanswered child-welfare questions. Which alleged behaviour was considered? What records support the analysis? How were the child’s wishes understood in context? What accounts for any apparent inconsistency? What would make the proposed arrangements safe in practice?

Cafcass: assessing domestic abuse describes behaviour-specific assessment and attention to children’s experiences. Cafcass Cymru: domestic abuse practice guidance has its own guidance, including child participation material updated in August 2026. Cafcass England policy should not be presented as if it were the Welsh organisation’s policy. If a report is inaccurate, identify the paragraph, correction, source and effect on the recommendation, then raise it through the proper process.

Step 6: ask early for safe participation

Under Family Procedure Rules, rule 3A.2A, where domestic abuse victimisation or risk is stated, the court must apply the specified assumption about diminished evidence or participation unless the person requests otherwise, and consider necessary participation directions. Identify the practical help you need: separate waiting arrangements, screens, remote attendance where appropriate, breaks or arrangements for giving evidence.

Practice Direction 3AB: cross-examination in person addresses prohibitions on questioning another party in person, including automatic statutory grounds and discretionary directions. Ask the court to consider the applicable route early; do not assume that merely saying “domestic abuse” automatically secures every measure. A court-appointed qualified legal representative for cross-examination does not become your general case solicitor. Older proceedings have transitional rules.

Step 7: propose arrangements that address the identified harm

For each proposal, ask: what risk does this address, who will implement it, and how will the court know whether it works? Possible issues include handover location, communication channels, third-party involvement, supervision, indirect contact, review arrangements or no contact where justified. None should be assumed to be safe merely because of its label.

For example, moving messages into a parenting app does not necessarily prevent intimidation. Supervision during a visit may leave threats around travel, handovers or online communication untouched. Ask who will provide any proposed service, its actual safeguards, cost, availability and reporting arrangements. Do not assume supported contact provides the same oversight as supervised contact.

Where further applications themselves risk harm, Practice Direction 12Q: section 91(14) orders explains section 91(14) orders alongside section 91A. These create a permission filter for specified future applications, not an absolute ban. Duration and scope require justification. Repeated litigation is not automatically abusive, and the order must not become a device for silencing legitimate safeguarding concerns.

6. A worked example: turn a label into a welfare question

Fictional example. It does not describe a JSH Law client or any private proceedings.

Parent A alleges that Parent B repeatedly required the child to report who visited A’s home, sent threats after the child declined to answer, and withheld agreement to ordinary activities unless A supplied personal information. B denies the account and says the messages concerned legitimate safeguarding.

“B is controlling” leaves the judge with a conclusion. A useful presentation identifies the complete messages, dates, any independent record and B’s explanation. It then explains the alleged consequences: the child became anxious about speaking at handovers and stopped inviting friends home. Those consequences also need evidence; they should not be assumed from the messages alone.

The question becomes whether this was a pattern of using the child to monitor A, what effect it had, and how future arrangements should address any established harm. A possible request is for focused findings, disclosure of specified records and an assessment of communication and handover safeguards. The court decides which steps are necessary.

A short hearing checklist

1. Latest sealed order, hearing notice and deadlines.
2. A one-page list of the decisions you ask the court to make.
3. Chronology and pattern summary with accurate page references.
4. Clear separation of allegations, admissions and findings.
5. The child’s experience and the source of each account.
6. Specific missing evidence and proposed directions.
7. Your participation needs and practical arrangements.
8. A realistic proposal addressing identified harm and benefit.

7. What if you are accused of “parental alienation”?

The Family Justice Council: alienating behaviour guidance, December 2024 rejects treating parental alienation as a diagnosable syndrome. It requires analysis of the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal, alternative explanations including the other parent’s behaviour, and conduct which caused the relationship difficulty. Refusal alone does not prove manipulation.

If such an allegation is made, ask for the alleged actions, dates, evidence and claimed effect to be identified. Explain relevant safeguarding concerns and the child’s experiences without coaching them or assuming that their expressed view resolves every issue. Genuine manipulation can harm a child; so can mislabelling a justified response to abuse. Neither allegation should displace the need for evidence.

8. What should meaningful reform look like?

The following are JSH Law’s proposals, not a statement of duties already imposed in every case.

1. Make parenting behaviour the focus. Require reports to explain how coercive conduct affects care, autonomy, relationships and the child’s daily life.
2. Preserve the pattern through the proceedings. A finding of control should remain visible in later welfare analysis instead of disappearing into a neutral description of parental disagreement.
3. Ask what changed. An apology or completed course should prompt an evidence-based assessment of behaviour and risk, not an assumption that the problem is resolved.
4. Hear the child without making the child responsible. Provide a safe way to understand their experiences without requiring them to manage either parent’s emotions or decide the case.
5. Explain the safety reasoning. Readers of a report or order should be able to follow the path from established facts to risk assessment to proposed arrangements.
6. Check what happens afterwards. Evaluate the safety and workability of arrangements, alongside access to timely review and protection from abusive litigation.

The standard should be demanding and fair for every parent: conduct, consequences and demonstrated change. A protective system should scrutinise harmful behaviour and support safe relationships without using either parental status or an untested label as the answer.

9. Key researchers, practitioners and campaigners to read

These contributions serve different purposes. Academic research can explain patterns; campaigning can expose failures; practitioner models can improve questions. None proves the facts of an individual case or replaces the court’s legal test. This is a selected reading map, not a ranking or a claim of endorsement.

• Emma Katz: Emma Katz: Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives, 2022 and Emma Katz: research on mother–child relationships centre children’s constrained lives and the impact on mother–child relationships. The qualitative research is valuable for understanding mechanisms; its small samples are not prevalence estimates.
• Evan Stark: Evan Stark: The Coercive Control of Children, 2023 develops analysis of coercive control affecting children. It offers a conceptual framework, not an English statutory test.
• Rosemary Hunter, Liz Trinder and Mandy Burton: Hunter, Trinder and Burton: Harm Panel research provides a foundation for understanding structural failings and reform. Hunter and Burton also supervised the Commissioner’s Domestic Abuse Commissioner: Everyday Business, 2025 research.
• Adrienne Barnett and Felicity Kaganas: Adrienne Barnett: Domestic abuse and private law children cases, 2020 and Hunter, Barnett and Kaganas: Contact and domestic abuse, 2018 examine the interaction between abuse, contact and family justice.
• David Mandel: the David Mandel: applying a perpetrator-pattern approach in family court concentrates attention on perpetrator behaviour and its parenting consequences. It is a practice model, not binding law in England and Wales.
• Claire Throssell and Women’s Aid: their Women’s Aid and Claire Throssell: repeal campaign, October 2026 has been central to the campaign known as Jack and Paul’s Law. Read our separate explanation of the repeal campaign and legislation.
• The Domestic Abuse Commissioner: the Domestic Abuse Commissioner: Everyday Business, 2025 programme makes court practice and survivor experience available for scrutiny alongside the statutory framework.
• Specialist advocates and the judiciary: Re H-N records the contributions of numerous lawyers and interveners, including Dr Charlotte Proudman in two of the joined appeals. The authority is the court’s judgment; it should not be attributed to a single advocate. Its judicial analysis, alongside Hayden J in F v M, is essential reading.

10. Questions parents ask

Can a mother perpetrate coercive control?

Yes. The domestic abuse framework is not limited to male perpetrators. Describe the conduct and its effects. Equally, do not erase the gendered evidence base or assume that all families fit the same pattern.

Does “no further action” by the police mean I cannot raise abuse?

No. Criminal and family processes have different purposes and standards. Accurately disclose the police outcome and any reasons you have. The absence of a prosecution neither proves nor disproves the allegation; the family court assesses the relevant evidence.

Does an abuse finding automatically stop contact?

No. It informs the welfare and risk assessment. The court must determine arrangements for the individual child. Equally, an affectionate relationship or enjoyable visit does not make an established pattern of abuse irrelevant.

Can I stop contact because the law is being repealed?

The proposed repeal does not change an existing order. If circumstances or risks require change, seek the appropriate urgent or ordinary court process and specialist advice. Do not treat news of legislation as a variation order.

What if I have no solicitor?

Check GOV.UK: domestic abuse and legal aid before assuming you must represent yourself. Eligibility depends on the applicable evidence, means and merits requirements. You can approach a legal adviser before obtaining all supporting documents. Ask a specialist domestic abuse service about practical support as well.

Can I publish my evidence online to show what happened?

Do not assume so. Children proceedings have confidentiality and reporting restrictions. Use lawful disclosure and court processes; obtain advice before publishing documents or identifying information. Our public examples are fictional for that reason.

Sources and how to use this article

Primary law and guidance are linked beside the relevant propositions. Start with the Children Act, PD12J and the specific judgment paragraphs relevant to your issue. Research and campaigning are expressly distinguished from law; the evidence framework and reform proposals are JSH Law analysis. Parliamentary status was checked on 10 November 2026 and should be checked again before reliance. This article is not an exhaustive case-law digest.

Further practical reading: co-parenting app harassment; correcting a Cafcass safeguarding letter; and requesting police disclosure.