JSH Law | Domestic Abuse, Safeguarding & Family Court Commentary

Stacey Dooley’s Fallen Women: Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control and the Deaths We Still Do Not Investigate Properly

BBC Factual has announced three new documentaries fronted by journalist and broadcaster Stacey Dooley: Death in the Barracks, Fallen Women and Down the K-Hole.

For those working in domestic abuse, safeguarding, family justice and violence against women and girls, Fallen Women is likely to be particularly significant.

According to the BBC announcement, the documentary begins with the story of Bianca Thomas, a young mother from Birmingham whose death after falling from an 11th-floor balcony was ruled accidental. Stacey meets Bianca’s family and friends, who remain unhappy with the verdict and still have questions about the circumstances of her death.

The film then examines wider cases involving women whose deaths occurred in ambiguous circumstances, often following allegations or histories of coercive and violent relationships. It also considers the growing campaign for “Bee’s Law”, which would encourage such scenes to be treated more consistently as potential crime scenes.

Why this documentary matters

Domestic abuse is still too often misunderstood.

Many people still imagine domestic abuse as a single violent incident. A punch. A broken bone. A visible injury. A police call-out. A dramatic event that can be neatly documented and easily understood.

But domestic abuse rarely operates so neatly.

It can be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, financial, digital and coercive. It can be hidden in ordinary-looking relationships. It can be minimised by professionals. It can be denied by perpetrators. It can be normalised by families. It can be missed by systems that look only for visible injury.

Coercive control is particularly dangerous because it is cumulative. It is not simply “a bad relationship”. It is a pattern of domination, intimidation, isolation and control. It is designed to make the victim feel trapped, dependent, frightened or powerless.

That is why a death following a fall from height cannot always be understood by looking only at the fall itself. The surrounding circumstances matter. The relationship history matters. Previous disclosures matter. Threats matter. Police logs matter. Messages matter. Medical records matter. Witness accounts matter. Children’s experiences matter. The victim’s own words matter.

What Fallen Women appears to be asking

From the BBC announcement, Fallen Women appears to raise several difficult but necessary questions:

• Are deaths from height always investigated with sufficient professional curiosity?
• Are police and other agencies alert to domestic abuse, coercive control and violent relationship histories?
• Are scenes preserved properly where the circumstances are ambiguous?
• Are bereaved families listened to when they raise concerns?
• Are assumptions being made too early about accident or suicide?
• Is enough attention given to patterns of abuse before death?
• Do we need better consistency, data collection and national guidance?

These are not comfortable questions. But they are essential.

When a woman dies in sudden, unexplained or ambiguous circumstances, the investigation must be capable of looking beyond the immediate scene. It must examine whether the death sits within a wider pattern of abuse, fear, coercion, violence, stalking or control.

Deaths from height and the importance of context

A fall from height may be accidental. It may be self-inflicted. It may be caused by another person. It may occur in circumstances that are extremely difficult to reconstruct.

That is precisely why the early investigation matters so much.

Evidence can disappear quickly. A room can be cleaned. A phone can be removed. Messages can be deleted. CCTV can be overwritten. Witnesses can leave. A balcony, window, stairwell or rooftop can be disturbed. Digital evidence can be lost. Early assumptions can shape everything that follows.

Where there is any credible indication of domestic abuse, coercive control, threats, violence, stalking, fear or previous allegations, domestic abuse should not be treated as a side issue. It should be a central line of enquiry.

The legal definition of domestic abuse is wider than many people realise

In England and Wales, domestic abuse is now defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act recognises that abusive behaviour can include:

• physical or sexual abuse;
• violent or threatening behaviour;
• controlling or coercive behaviour;
• economic abuse; and
• psychological, emotional or other abuse.

This matters because it moves the conversation beyond the outdated idea that domestic abuse only “counts” if there has been physical violence.

It also matters because coercive control is not always obvious to outsiders. It may look like constant criticism, isolation, monitoring, financial dependency, threats, humiliation, sexual pressure, control over movement, control over technology, control over contact with friends and family, or repeated behaviour designed to make the victim feel there is no safe way out.

The Home Office statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour makes clear that this offence is not about a single incident. It concerns an intentional pattern of behaviour over time, used by one person to exert power, control or coercion over another.

What coercive control can look like before a crisis

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings about coercive control is the idea that it should be easy to see.

Often, it is not.

None of these behaviours should be dismissed as “relationship conflict” without careful analysis. In domestic abuse cases, context is everything.

The problem with looking at incidents in isolation

Systems often fail victims because they separate events into disconnected fragments.

A frightened phone call becomes “just an argument”.

A previous assault becomes “historic”.

A threat becomes “hearsay”.

Monitoring becomes “concern”.

Financial control becomes “money stress”.

A victim’s distress becomes “instability”.

A perpetrator’s calm presentation becomes “credibility”.

That is how patterns are missed.

Domestic abuse does not always announce itself in one perfect piece of evidence. It is often found in the accumulation: the chronology, the messages, the disclosures, the witnesses, the medical notes, the police logs, the behaviour before and after separation, and the victim’s own words.

Why “Bee’s Law” is being discussed

The BBC announcement refers to the growing campaign for “Bee’s Law”, which would encourage scenes involving women who fall from height to be treated more consistently as potential crime scenes.

The principle behind that campaign is straightforward: where a woman has died after falling from height, particularly where there are allegations or histories of domestic abuse, coercive control or violence, the investigation should not begin from a place of premature closure.

It should begin with evidence preservation.

That means securing the scene, preserving digital evidence, checking previous police reports, speaking to relevant witnesses, considering domestic abuse history, reviewing medical and safeguarding records where appropriate, and avoiding assumptions that cannot yet be safely made.

This is not about presuming that every death is a homicide. It is about ensuring that possible evidence is not lost before investigators have properly understood the context.

Families should not have to become investigators

One of the most painful themes in cases involving unexplained or contested deaths is the burden placed on families.

Bereaved families may find themselves trying to obtain records, challenge assumptions, identify witnesses, preserve messages, instruct lawyers, raise funds, deal with coronial processes, speak to the media, push for reviews and force agencies to look again.

That is an extraordinary burden to place on people who are grieving.

Where domestic abuse may be relevant, families should be listened to carefully. They may know about previous incidents, fears, disclosures, threats or controlling behaviour that agencies have not joined together. They may hold vital context. They may be able to identify patterns that are not obvious from the final incident alone.

That does not mean families can determine the outcome. It means their concerns should be taken seriously and tested properly through evidence.

Why this matters in the family court too

Although Fallen Women concerns deaths and investigation, the same pattern problem appears constantly in family court proceedings.

Survivors are often expected to prove coercive control in a system that still sometimes looks for visible injury, recent police action or criminal convictions. That approach is unsafe.

Many victims do not have convictions to point to. Some never reported. Some reported and were not believed. Some were too frightened to continue. Some were financially trapped. Some were threatened with losing the children. Some were told nobody would believe them. Some were still trying to make sense of what had happened to them.

In children proceedings, financial remedy proceedings, non-molestation order applications and occupation order applications, coercive control may appear through:

• post-separation abuse;
• litigation abuse;
• repeated applications designed to exhaust the other party;
• withholding money, documents, passports or belongings;
• using child arrangements as a mechanism of control;
• monitoring calls or handovers;
• intimidating behaviour at court or during communication;
• controlling narratives given to professionals;
• using children as messengers or emotional weapons;
• minimising abuse as “conflict” or “communication difficulties”.

The family court must be willing to look at patterns. It must not reduce coercive control to isolated incidents stripped of context.

The danger of calling everything “conflict”

One of the most damaging habits in domestic abuse cases is the use of neutral language to describe unequal power.

Not every case is “high conflict”.

Sometimes one person is afraid and the other person is controlling.

Sometimes one person is trying to create safety and the other person is trying to maintain dominance.

Sometimes one person is trying to set boundaries and the other person is punishing them for it.

Calling everything “conflict” can erase coercive control. It can make the victim appear equally responsible for the abuse they are trying to escape. It can also lead professionals to prioritise contact, compromise or communication over safety.

What professionals should be asking

Whether the context is police investigation, coronial process, safeguarding, family court or legal support, professionals need to ask better questions.

1. Was there a known or alleged history of domestic abuse?
   This includes physical abuse, coercive control, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, economic abuse, stalking, harassment, intimidation and threats.
2. Was the victim afraid?
   Fear is not always expressed formally. It may appear in messages, disclosures to friends, changed behaviour, withdrawal, anxiety or attempts to appease the perpetrator.
3. Was there isolation?
   Isolation from family, friends, work, professionals or support services is a major red flag in coercive control cases.
4. Was there monitoring or surveillance?
   This may include phone monitoring, location tracking, spyware, checking messages, controlling social media or requiring constant updates.
5. Were there threats linked to children, money, immigration, housing or reputation?
   Coercive control often operates through threats that may not look like direct physical violence.
6. What evidence exists across agencies?
   Police, GPs, hospitals, schools, social services, employers, domestic abuse services and family members may each hold part of the picture.
7. What changed before the crisis?
   Escalation, separation, pregnancy, new relationships, court proceedings, financial disputes and loss of control can all be relevant risk points.

What needs to change

If Fallen Women succeeds in bringing these issues to a wider audience, the conversation must not stop at awareness. Awareness matters, but awareness without structural change is not enough.

We need practical reform.

None of this undermines due process. It strengthens it.

Proper investigation protects everyone. It protects families from unanswered questions. It protects suspects from unsafe speculation. It protects the integrity of criminal proceedings. It protects the public from systemic failure. Most importantly, it protects the dignity of women whose deaths deserve to be understood properly.

For survivors reading this

If you are reading this and recognising your own relationship, please take that seriously.

You do not need to wait until there is physical violence before seeking support. You do not need to have a criminal conviction before your fear matters. You do not need to justify why something feels wrong. You do not need to minimise behaviour because nobody else has seen the worst of it.

Coercive control often makes victims doubt themselves. That is part of how it works.

If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If it is not safe to speak, you may be able to use the Silent Solution by calling 999 and pressing 55 when prompted.

You can contact the National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge, on 0808 2000 247. It is free, confidential and available 24 hours a day.

How JSH Law can help in family court cases involving domestic abuse

JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court paperwork, evidence organisation and hearing preparation where domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding concerns or post-separation abuse are relevant.

In these cases, the quality of the evidence preparation matters. The court needs to understand the pattern, not simply a list of isolated events.

Helpful documents may include:

• a clear safeguarding chronology;
• a focused witness statement;
• a Scott Schedule or allegations schedule where appropriate;
• a pattern-based coercive control summary;
• a child impact summary;
• a position statement for hearings;
• organised exhibits and message evidence;
• preparation for fact-finding hearings;
• preparation for non-molestation order or occupation order applications;
• questions for Cafcass, experts or witnesses where permitted.

Domestic abuse evidence must be presented clearly, calmly and safely. It should not be a data dump. It should help the court see the pattern, understand the risk and make child-focused, safeguarding-led decisions.

Final thought

Fallen Women is likely to be difficult viewing. But difficult viewing is sometimes necessary.

Women’s deaths should not be reduced to assumptions. Families should not have to fight for basic investigative curiosity. Domestic abuse should not be missed because there was no obvious injury. Coercive control should not be ignored because it is harder to evidence than physical violence.

When women fall, the system must look up.

It must look at the relationship. It must look at the history. It must look at fear. It must look at control. It must look at the evidence before it disappears.

And where domestic abuse may be part of the story, it must not look away.