Tag Archive for: Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Posts

Stacey Dooley’s Fallen Women: The Domestic Abuse Deaths We Still Do Not Investigate Properly

June 24, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

When a woman dies after falling from height, the system must not rush to close the door on difficult questions. Stacey Dooley’s new BBC documentary, Fallen Women, will examine British women whose deaths occurred in deeply troubling circumstances, including cases where families believe domestic abuse, coercive control or violent relationship histories may not have been properly understood. These are not easy conversations. But they are necessary ones — because domestic abuse does not always leave visible injuries, and the final incident is not always the whole story.

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

When a woman dies after falling from height, the question should not be closed down too quickly. Where domestic abuse, coercive control, violence, threats or fear may form part of the background, the system must be prepared to look at the whole pattern — not just the final moment.

The BBC has announced a new Stacey Dooley documentary, Fallen Women, for BBC Three and BBC iPlayer. The film will examine British women who died after falls from height and ask whether patterns of domestic abuse may have been overlooked in some of these deaths.

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.

Important legal note: This article does not make any finding or allegation about the circumstances of any individual death. That is a matter for proper investigation, evidence, inquest processes and, where applicable, criminal proceedings. The issue addressed here is broader: how systems respond when women die in ambiguous circumstances against a background where domestic abuse or coercive control may be relevant.

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.

The final incident is not always the whole story. In domestic abuse cases, the pattern is often the evidence.

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.

This is the safeguarding point: treating a scene as potentially significant does not presume guilt. It preserves evidence. It protects the integrity of the investigation. It gives the family a better chance of answers. It gives the deceased woman the seriousness she deserves.

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.

Isolation

The victim may become cut off from friends, family, work, community, support services or anyone who might challenge the abuser’s control.

Monitoring

The perpetrator may monitor phones, messages, location, social media, bank accounts, movements, clothing, conversations or friendships.

Threats

Threats may involve violence, suicide, children, immigration status, finances, housing, reputation, pets, court proceedings or public humiliation.

Humiliation

The victim may be degraded, mocked, blamed, gaslit, criticised, accused of being unstable, or made to feel worthless and dependent.

Financial control

Money may be restricted, monitored or withheld. The victim may be prevented from working, forced into debt or made financially dependent.

Post-separation abuse

The abuse may continue after separation through litigation, child arrangements, harassment, stalking, financial pressure or repeated breaches of boundaries.

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.

The better question is not “Where is the single incident?”

The better question is:

What pattern is emerging?
Who had power?
Who was afraid?
Who was isolated?
Who was being monitored?
Who was being threatened?
What changed in the victim’s behaviour before death?
What evidence exists across agencies, devices and witnesses?

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.

When coercive control is mislabelled as conflict, safeguarding is already being diluted.

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.

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.
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.
Was there isolation?
Isolation from family, friends, work, professionals or support services is a major red flag in coercive control cases.
Was there monitoring or surveillance?
This may include phone monitoring, location tracking, spyware, checking messages, controlling social media or requiring constant updates.
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.
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.
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.

At a minimum, we need:

clearer national guidance for deaths from height where domestic abuse may be relevant;
consistent treatment of ambiguous scenes as potential crime scenes until properly assessed;
proper digital evidence preservation from the outset;
domestic abuse and coercive control training for police, coroners, prosecutors and family justice professionals;
better data collection on women who die after falls from height;
proper recording of domestic abuse history across agencies;
meaningful family engagement where relatives raise concerns;
stronger links between domestic abuse services and investigators;
family court training on coercive control, post-separation abuse and litigation abuse;
a shift away from minimising abuse as “relationship conflict”.

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.

Need help preparing family court evidence involving domestic abuse or coercive control?

JSH Law helps litigants in person prepare clear, focused and safeguarding-led family court documents, including witness statements, chronologies, position statements, non-molestation order paperwork, child arrangements evidence and hearing preparation.

Book a consultation or request document support through JSH Law.

Sources and further reading

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are involved in court proceedings or at immediate risk, seek urgent legal or safeguarding advice.

“`

The Government Finally Recognises Economic Abuse in Financial Remedy Cases – Could This Transform Family Justice?

June 10, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

For years, domestic abuse survivors have described a painful reality: leaving the relationship did not end the abuse. It simply moved into the family court system. Through financial remedy proceedings, hidden assets, delayed disclosure, mounting legal costs and endless litigation, many have experienced a continuation of coercive control long after separation. Now, in its landmark consultation A Fairer End to Relationships, the Government has finally acknowledged what survivors, campaigners and family lawyers have been saying for years — that financial proceedings themselves can become a vehicle for abuse. The question is whether this consultation will lead to meaningful reform, or merely another discussion about a system that many believe is already failing those it was designed to protect.

The Government Has Finally Admitted the Financial Remedy System Can Be Used as a Tool of Abuse

The Ministry of Justice consultation A Fairer End to Relationships could become one of the most important family law reform moments in decades — not just for divorcing couples, but for cohabitants, domestic abuse survivors, and litigants in person trapped in financial proceedings that can feel impossible to survive.

On 5 June 2026, the Government published its long-awaited consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships. It covers three major areas of reform: financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, financial provision for cohabitants on separation, and inheritance rights for cohabitants when a partner dies without a will.

But buried inside the technical language is something much bigger. The Government has expressly recognised that domestic abuse, including economic abuse, can continue after separation through the financial remedy process itself.

This matters. For years, victim-survivors have been saying that separation does not end abuse. It often changes the battleground. Money, disclosure, housing, debts, pensions, legal costs, enforcement and delay can all become weapons.

The consultation is open until 14 August 2026. Victim-survivors, family lawyers, domestic abuse organisations, academics, judges, mediators and members of the public can respond through the official consultation page: respond to the consultation here.

Why this consultation is different

Financial remedy reform is not new. Family lawyers have complained for years that the law is uncertain, inaccessible and too dependent on broad judicial discretion. The core statute, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, is more than 50 years old. It has been developed by case law, but for ordinary people — especially litigants in person — that makes the system difficult to understand and even harder to navigate.

The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report concluded that the current law lacks certainty and accessibility, and set out possible models for reform. The Government has now chosen to consult on what it calls a “codification-plus” model: putting settled case law principles such as needs and sharing into statute, while also considering targeted reforms.

In plain English: the Government is looking at whether the rules for dividing money on divorce should be clearer, more predictable and easier for people to understand without needing expensive legal advice at every turn.

The domestic abuse issue: why the “gasp factor” is under fire

One of the most significant parts of the consultation concerns misconduct and domestic abuse in financial remedy cases.

Traditionally, conduct is only taken into account in financial remedy proceedings in limited circumstances. The often-cited formulation is whether it would be inequitable to disregard the conduct. Over time, this has been associated with what many practitioners call the “gasp factor”: behaviour so serious that the court effectively “gasps” before deciding it should affect the financial outcome.

That approach has been heavily criticised in domestic abuse cases.

The obvious problem: if judges regularly deal with serious abuse, they may become less likely to “gasp” at behaviour that is still deeply harmful, financially devastating and relevant to the parties’ real needs.

The Government consultation expressly recognises this concern. It states that the current approach may risk trivialising domestic abuse and failing to reflect the seriousness of such behaviour. It asks whether domestic abuse should more readily be taken into account in financial remedy and future cohabitation proceedings.

Economic abuse does not stop when the relationship ends

Economic abuse is not simply “arguments about money”. It is a form of coercive control. It can include restricting access to bank accounts, forcing debt into the victim’s name, preventing work, hiding assets, refusing to pay bills, manipulating disclosure, draining joint funds, weaponising legal costs, or using court delay to exhaust the other party.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expressly recognises economic abuse as part of domestic abuse. That recognition now needs to be reflected properly in financial proceedings.

Abusive tactic	How it can appear in financial remedy proceedings	Why it matters
Withholding money	Refusing interim support, cutting off access to funds, leaving the survivor unable to pay rent or legal fees.	The victim-survivor may be pushed into an unfair settlement simply to survive.
Hiding assets	Non-disclosure, incomplete Form E, unexplained transfers, cash dealings, business manipulation.	The court cannot make a fair order if the financial picture is deliberately obscured.
Weaponising delay	Missing deadlines, late disclosure, repeated adjournments, tactical applications.	Delay increases cost, stress and dependency.
Running up debt	Joint credit cards, loans, unpaid bills, tax liabilities, overdrafts.	The survivor may leave the relationship with liabilities they did not freely choose.
Litigation abuse	Using the process to intimidate, overwhelm or punish the other party.	The court process itself becomes a continuation of coercive control.

The reform question: should domestic abuse affect the financial outcome?

The Government is asking a direct question: should domestic abuse more readily be taken into account when the court distributes assets in financial remedy and cohabitation cases?

This is not a small technical point. It goes to the heart of fairness.

My view: if abuse has created financial vulnerability, damaged earning capacity, forced debt, caused housing instability, obstructed disclosure, or made litigation more expensive and traumatic, then it is artificial to pretend it is irrelevant to the financial outcome.

The court does not need to turn every financial remedy case into a conduct trial. That would be dangerous and unworkable. But the current threshold is too blunt. Domestic abuse should not have to be spectacular, shocking or unusual before it is treated as financially relevant.

Cohabitants: the biggest practical reform for millions of families

The consultation also proposes reform for cohabitants. This is crucial because there is no such thing as “common law marriage” in England and Wales, no matter how long a couple has lived together or whether they have children.

At present, separating cohabitants often have to rely on complex property and trust law. That may be completely inadequate where one partner has given up work, cared for children, paid into the home informally, or been economically controlled.

The Government notes that over 3.5 million couples live together without being married or in a civil partnership. Cohabiting families are no longer unusual. They are part of ordinary family life. Yet the law still leaves many people exposed when the relationship ends.

The dangerous myth: many people still believe they acquire automatic rights as a “common law spouse”. They do not. That misconception can leave people — often women and children — financially vulnerable after years of family life.

Domestic abuse and cohabitation: why the current gap is dangerous

The consultation recognises that limited legal protection can make it harder for victim-survivors to leave abusive relationships. If a person has no clear claim to the home, no financial safety net, no access to funds, and children to care for, leaving may feel impossible.

This is especially serious where the abuse is economic. A perpetrator may control the tenancy, mortgage, savings, benefits, bank accounts, car, phone contract or household bills. The survivor may be technically “free to leave” but practically unable to do so.

Current position	Potential reform direction	Why it matters for survivors
No automatic financial remedy framework for separating cohabitants.	A dedicated statutory scheme for eligible cohabitants.	Could give vulnerable partners a clearer route to financial support.
Property disputes often depend on ownership, trusts and contributions.	A needs-based approach is being considered.	Could better reflect childcare, dependency and economic disadvantage.
Domestic abuse may be hidden behind “ordinary” financial arrangements.	The consultation asks how abuse should be treated consistently.	Could reduce the ability of perpetrators to use financial control after separation.

Inheritance rights for cohabitants: the forgotten crisis

The consultation also considers inheritance provision for cohabitants. At present, if someone dies without a will, their unmarried partner does not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules.

That can create devastating outcomes. A surviving partner may have lived with the deceased for years, raised children with them, contributed to the household, and still be left with no automatic inheritance. Their only route may be a court claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Practical reality: many people do not know they may have a claim. Others cannot afford litigation, cannot face family conflict, or are too overwhelmed by grief to issue proceedings.

Qualifying nuptial agreements: prenups and postnups may become more powerful

The consultation also invites views on qualifying nuptial agreements. These would allow couples to make binding financial arrangements before or during marriage or civil partnership, subject to safeguards.

This could increase certainty. But it also raises serious domestic abuse concerns. A nuptial agreement signed under pressure, financial dependency, coercive control, pregnancy, immigration insecurity, or fear of homelessness is not genuine autonomy.

Any reform must include strong safeguards. Binding agreements should not become another way for economically stronger partners to contract out of fairness while the weaker party is pressured into signing away protection.

What this means for litigants in person

This consultation is not just for lawyers. It matters profoundly for litigants in person.

Financial remedy proceedings are already difficult for represented parties. For people without solicitors, they can be overwhelming. Form E, disclosure, questionnaires, deficiencies, valuations, pensions, settlement offers, FDRs, final hearings and enforcement are procedurally demanding.

Add domestic abuse, economic abuse or coercive control into that process, and the imbalance can become severe.

A survivor may not know what financial documents exist.
They may not have access to bank statements, mortgage information, pension details or business records.
They may be frightened of challenging non-disclosure.
They may be pressured to settle quickly.
They may be accused of being “difficult” when they are simply trying to obtain basic financial transparency.
They may leave the process with an order that looks tidy on paper but is impossible to enforce in real life.

That is why enforcement matters. A financial order that cannot be enforced quickly, affordably and safely is not meaningful protection. It is paperwork.

The key consultation questions survivors should consider answering

If you are responding to the consultation, these are some of the most important issues to address:

Issue	What to say in practical terms
Domestic abuse in financial remedy cases	Explain how abuse affected money, housing, work, debt, disclosure, litigation costs or your ability to negotiate freely.
Economic abuse	Give examples of financial control, hidden assets, forced debt, withheld support or sabotage of employment.
The “gasp factor”	Explain why abuse should not need to be extreme or shocking before the court recognises its financial consequences.
Cohabitation reform	Explain how lack of legal protection can trap people in unsafe relationships or leave children financially exposed.
Enforcement	Explain what happens when orders are ignored, payments are delayed, assets are hidden or survivors cannot afford further applications.
Nuptial agreements	Explain why safeguards are needed where there is pressure, coercion, dependency or unequal bargaining power.

What reform must not do

Reform must not simply produce a tidier statute for lawyers while leaving survivors with the same practical barriers.

It must not:

treat domestic abuse as a side issue;
force survivors to relitigate trauma unnecessarily;
allow perpetrators to weaponise disclosure and delay;
create rights on paper that are too expensive to enforce;
ignore the reality of litigants in person;
pretend economic abuse ends once the parties separate;
allow nuptial agreements to override fairness where there was coercion or vulnerability.

What good reform should look like

A genuinely fair system should do the following:

Define the purpose of financial remedies clearly so ordinary people can understand what the court is trying to achieve.
Make domestic abuse financially relevant where it has caused vulnerability, debt, dependency, loss of earning capacity or litigation disadvantage.
Improve disclosure enforcement so non-disclosure has real consequences.
Protect cohabitants and children where family life has created financial dependency or vulnerability.
Strengthen procedural protections so survivors are not cross-examined, pressured or worn down through the financial process.
Make enforcement faster and cheaper because an unenforced order is not justice.
Support litigants in person with clearer forms, guidance and accessible explanations.

The real test is simple: does the reform help people leave unsafe relationships, obtain fair financial outcomes, protect children, and rebuild their lives without being dragged through years of financially abusive litigation?

Why JSH Law is watching this closely

At JSH Law, we work with litigants in person who are often trying to navigate the family court system without full representation. Many are dealing with urgent documents, safeguarding allegations, domestic abuse, coercive control, financial pressure, child arrangements disputes or difficult procedural steps.

This consultation is important because it acknowledges something victim-survivors have been saying for years: the court process can be used as part of the abuse.

That does not mean every financial remedy case involves abuse. It does not mean every allegation should automatically change the outcome. But it does mean the system needs a more intelligent, evidence-led approach to the financial consequences of domestic abuse.

For litigants in person, evidence matters. If financial abuse is relevant, it needs to be set out clearly, chronologically and with documents where possible: bank records, messages, missed payments, debt evidence, disclosure failures, housing costs, employment impact and litigation conduct.

How to respond to the consultation

The consultation closes on 14 August 2026.

You can read the official consultation and respond here:

Final word

This consultation is not perfect. It is not reform yet. It is not a guarantee that the law will change in the way survivors need.

But it is significant.

The Government has placed domestic abuse, economic abuse, cohabitation vulnerability, financial remedy reform and enforcement on the same page. That is a major shift. The task now is to make sure the voices of those who have actually lived through the system are not drowned out by technical legal debate.

If the family justice system is serious about fairness, it must stop treating money as separate from abuse. In many cases, money is the mechanism of abuse. And after separation, the financial remedy process can become the arena where that abuse continues.

Need help preparing your financial remedy or family court documents?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court document preparation, case analysis, safeguarding chronologies, financial remedy preparation, position statements, evidence organisation and hearing preparation.

If you are dealing with domestic abuse, economic abuse, disclosure issues, court deadlines or urgent family court paperwork, you can book a short initial consultation here:

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Family law outcomes are fact-specific. If you are in immediate danger, contact the police or a specialist domestic abuse service.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Is Under Review: What Litigants in Person Need to Know

May 26, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was meant to mark a turning point: a clear statutory recognition that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. It includes coercive control, economic abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and other forms of behaviour that can trap a person long after a relationship has ended. But as the House of Lords Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee now asks whether the statutory definition is working in practice, litigants in person in the family court need to pay close attention — because the gap between what the law says and what happens in real cases can be devastating for parents and children.

Is the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Working? Why Litigants in Person Need to Watch This Inquiry Closely

Category: Family Court, Domestic Abuse, Litigants in Person, Legal Process, Access to Justice

The House of Lords is now examining whether the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is working in practice. That matters enormously for litigants in person, especially parents in private children proceedings, because the statutory definition of domestic abuse affects how allegations are recognised, how risk is assessed, how children are understood as victims, and how the family court approaches safeguarding.

This is not a remote Westminster issue. This is about what happens when a parent walks into the family court without a solicitor, tries to explain coercive control, economic abuse, post-separation abuse, faith-based abuse, honour-based abuse, tech-facilitated abuse, or the impact on children — and finds that the system is still better at recognising obvious physical violence than patterns of control.

On Thursday 21 May 2026, the House of Lords Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee took oral evidence as part of its inquiry into the Act. The session considered whether the statutory definition properly captures different forms of abuse, including economic abuse, faith and spiritual abuse, tech-facilitated abuse, honour-based abuse and coercive control.

The Committee’s wider inquiry is considering the impact and effectiveness of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including whether there are gaps in the legislation. The Committee has said it will report by 30 November 2026. You can read more about the inquiry and call for evidence on the UK Parliament website.

Why this matters for litigants in person

If the legal definition is too narrow in practice, victims are forced to translate lived reality into legal language the court will recognise.

That is especially difficult for litigants in person, who are often already exhausted, frightened, traumatised, financially stretched and trying to navigate a system designed around legal professionals.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021: what it currently says

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created a statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales. The Act makes clear that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence.

Under section 1 of the Act, behaviour may be abusive if it consists of:

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

The definition applies where both people are aged 16 or over and are “personally connected”. The Act also recognises children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse and are related to either the victim or the perpetrator.

You can read the legislation directly here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The Act was a major step forward. But the question now is whether it is working on the ground — in police responses, safeguarding decisions, Cafcass assessments, local authority practice, criminal proceedings and family court cases.

The problem: recognition on paper is not the same as recognition in court

Many litigants in person understand this problem immediately. The law may contain the words “coercive control”, “economic abuse” and “psychological abuse”, but that does not mean those forms of abuse are consistently identified, evidenced, pleaded, investigated or acted upon.

In family proceedings, this can create a serious evidential gap. A parent may know they have been controlled, monitored, isolated, financially restricted, intimidated or manipulated. But unless that pattern is set out clearly, chronologically and with evidence, the court may treat it as “conflict”, “poor communication” or “parental disagreement”.

That distinction matters. Domestic abuse is not the same thing as ordinary relationship conflict. Coercive control is not simply two parents who do not get along. Economic abuse is not just money stress. Tech abuse is not just someone being “too interested” in your phone or location. Faith or spiritual abuse is not simply a difference in beliefs. Honour-based abuse is not a “family dispute”.

For litigants in person, the key issue is this:

You cannot assume the court, Cafcass, the police or the other party’s solicitor will automatically understand the pattern. You need to make the pattern visible.

What the Committee considered on 21 May 2026

The Committee’s evidence session looked at whether the statutory definition properly captures different forms of abuse. The witnesses listed for the session were:

Dr Nicola Sharp-Jeffs OBE, Independent Economic Abuse Expert;
Professor Lisa Oakley, Professor of Safeguarding and Knowledge Exchange at University of Chester;
Jen Reed, Head of Policy at UCL Gender and Tech Research Group;
Natasha Rattu, expert on forced marriage at Karma Nirvana;
Dr Cassandra Wiener, Reader in Law at City St George’s, University of London.

The themes included:

how the statutory definition applies to different forms of domestic abuse;
awareness of different forms of abuse;
whether the definition of being “personally connected” is wide enough;
whether the age limit in the statutory definition is appropriate.

You can view the Committee meeting page here: 21 May 2026 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee evidence session.

Economic abuse: when money becomes a method of control

Economic abuse is expressly recognised in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That was a significant legal development. It means the law recognises that abuse can involve control over money, property, employment, housing, transport, food, debt and financial independence.

For litigants in person, economic abuse may appear in evidence such as:

being prevented from working or studying;
having wages, benefits or child maintenance controlled;
being forced into debt;
being denied access to bank accounts or financial information;
being left without money for food, fuel, transport or children’s essentials;
post-separation financial control, including withholding payments, weaponising child maintenance, delaying property matters or using litigation costs as pressure.

The specialist charity Surviving Economic Abuse explains how the Act recognises economic abuse and how economic abuse can continue after separation.

Practical point for litigants in person

If you are alleging economic abuse, do not simply say “he controlled the money” or “she ruined me financially”. Set out specific examples, dates, documents and impact. Show the court how the financial behaviour created dependency, fear, restriction, pressure or control.

Tech-facilitated abuse: the law is still catching up

Technology has changed the landscape of domestic abuse. Abuse can now be carried out through phones, apps, location tracking, smart devices, online accounts, shared cloud storage, children’s devices, banking apps, social media, email accounts, spyware and digital surveillance.

Examples may include:

tracking a person’s location through their phone, car, child’s device or shared account;
accessing emails, cloud storage, photographs or messages without consent;
using children’s phones or tablets to monitor the other parent;
installing spyware or monitoring apps;
using smart doorbells, cameras, speakers or household devices to intimidate or monitor;
repeated online harassment, fake accounts, impersonation or image-based abuse;
weaponising parenting apps or communication platforms as a means of surveillance or harassment.

Recent reporting on the Committee session highlighted concerns that tech-facilitated abuse is still not sufficiently recognised as a central form of domestic abuse, even though it may fall under coercive control, psychological abuse or other forms of abusive behaviour. See, for example, this report: Domestic abuse law fails to recognise danger of tech abuse, Lords committee told.

Practical point for litigants in person

Do not delete digital evidence without taking advice. Preserve screenshots, account alerts, login notifications, device settings, messages, emails, app histories, location-sharing settings and incident logs. Keep a note of when you discovered the issue and what impact it had on your safety, privacy, parenting and mental health.

Faith and spiritual abuse: when belief is weaponised

Faith and spiritual abuse can be difficult for courts and professionals to identify because it may be hidden behind language of culture, belief, family expectation, religious duty or community pressure.

It may include:

using religious teaching to justify control, submission or punishment;
threatening spiritual consequences if someone leaves a relationship;
forcing religious practices or preventing religious practice;
using faith leaders, family or community members to pressure a victim;
shaming, isolating or blaming the victim through religious language;
telling children that one parent is immoral, unsafe or spiritually defective.

This matters in family court because faith and community pressure can affect a parent’s freedom, safety, support network and ability to make independent decisions. It can also affect children, especially where they are drawn into adult pressure, loyalty conflicts or spiritual fear.

Practical point for litigants in person

If faith, religion or community pressure forms part of the abuse, explain the mechanism of control. The court needs to understand what was said, who said it, what pressure was applied, what you were told would happen if you did not comply, and how this affected you or the children.

Honour-based abuse and forced marriage: not a private family matter

Honour-based abuse is often misunderstood. It may be presented as a family issue, a cultural issue, a relationship issue or a community issue. But where pressure, threats, violence, isolation, surveillance or coercion are used, the safeguarding risk can be serious.

Forced marriage and honour-based abuse may involve multiple perpetrators or enablers. The pressure may come from a partner, former partner, parent, sibling, extended family, community members or others. That can make it harder for victims to identify one single perpetrator or one single incident.

Specialist organisations such as Karma Nirvana provide support and information in this area.

Practical point for litigants in person

If there is honour-based abuse, forced marriage risk or community-based coercion, avoid presenting it as a general “family disagreement”. Set out the risk clearly, identify who is involved, explain any threats or pressure, and consider whether specialist safeguarding advice is needed urgently.

Coercive control: the pattern matters more than the isolated incident

Coercive control is one of the most important concepts for family court litigants in person to understand. It is often not one dramatic incident. It is a pattern.

The pattern may include:

isolation from family, friends, work or support;
monitoring movements, communications or spending;
degrading, humiliating or threatening behaviour;
rules about clothing, parenting, money, sex, religion or social contact;
threats relating to children, immigration, housing, finances or reputation;
post-separation control through contact arrangements, litigation, money, police reports or repeated accusations.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance explains that domestic abuse is not a specific offence in itself, but a general term describing a range of behaviour that may fall under different offences. The CPS guidance also recognises that domestic abuse may cause lasting trauma and that victims may not always recognise what is happening as abusive behaviour. You can read the CPS guidance here: CPS Domestic Abuse Guidance.

Litigants in person: do not plead coercive control as a list of random complaints

The court needs to see the architecture of control. What was the behaviour? How often did it happen? What was the purpose or effect? How did it restrict your freedom, safety, parenting, finances, mental health or relationship with the children?

The “personally connected” issue

The statutory definition requires the parties to be personally connected. This includes spouses, civil partners, people who have agreed to marry, people who are or have been in an intimate personal relationship, people who have or had a parental relationship in relation to the same child, and relatives.

For many family court cases, this will cover former partners and co-parents. But the Committee’s inquiry is looking at whether the definition is working properly across different abuse contexts. This matters because some forms of abuse involve wider family networks, community actors, digital actors or people who may not fit neatly into the ordinary public understanding of a “domestic” relationship.

The age limit issue: what about children under 16?

The statutory definition applies where both people are aged 16 or over. The Act does, however, recognise children as victims where they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related to the victim or perpetrator.

This still leaves difficult questions. Abuse between young people, digital abuse among teenagers, coercive control in adolescent relationships, and the impact of domestic abuse on younger children are all areas where safeguarding practice must keep pace with reality.

Practical point for parents

If your child has seen, heard or experienced the effects of domestic abuse, say so clearly. Do not limit your evidence to what happened to you. Explain what the child saw, heard, noticed, changed, feared, repeated, avoided or disclosed.

Why this is especially important in private children proceedings

Domestic abuse frequently arises in private law children cases. These are cases about child arrangements, live-with orders, spend-time-with orders, parental responsibility, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders.

For litigants in person, the issue is often not just whether domestic abuse happened. It is whether the abuse is properly connected to child welfare, risk, safe contact and future arrangements.

In practical terms, allegations of domestic abuse may affect:

whether a C1A form should be filed;
whether safeguarding checks are sufficient;
whether Cafcass has properly understood the allegations;
whether a fact-finding hearing is required;
whether special measures are needed;
whether direct cross-examination should be prevented;
whether contact should be supervised, supported, indirect or paused;
whether a pattern of post-separation abuse is continuing through litigation or child arrangements;
whether the child is being exposed to emotional harm, pressure or adult conflict.

The Law Society’s overview of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 notes that the Act prohibits offenders from cross-examining victims in person in the family courts and includes measures relating to special measures, protective orders and support for victims. You can read the Law Society overview here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021 — The Law Society.

What litigants in person should do now

If you are involved in family proceedings and domestic abuse is relevant, this inquiry should prompt you to review how your case is being presented. The court can only work with the evidence and structure placed before it.

Issue	What to do in your case
Coercive control	Create a chronology showing the pattern over time, not just isolated incidents.
Economic abuse	Gather bank statements, messages, debt letters, benefit records, maintenance records, employment evidence and examples of financial restriction.
Tech abuse	Preserve screenshots, device alerts, account access records, app settings, location-sharing evidence and suspicious login notifications.
Children’s exposure	Record what the child saw, heard, experienced, disclosed or changed in behaviour. Keep the focus on welfare, not adult grievance.
Faith, spiritual or honour-based abuse	Explain the pressure mechanism, who was involved, what was threatened, and how it affected safety or decision-making.
Post-separation abuse	Show how control continued after separation through money, communication, contact arrangements, litigation, threats or monitoring.
Cafcass concerns	Identify exactly what Cafcass missed, misunderstood or failed to analyse. Tie your criticism to evidence and welfare impact.

A simple evidence structure

For each allegation, try using this format:

Date or approximate period: When did it happen?
Behaviour: What exactly happened?
Evidence: What document, message, screenshot, witness or record supports it?
Impact on you: How did it affect your safety, freedom, finances, health or decision-making?
Impact on the child: What did the child see, hear, experience or suffer?
Relevance to orders sought: Why does this matter for child arrangements, safety or welfare?

Why “high conflict” language can be dangerous

One of the biggest problems for litigants in person is the casual use of the phrase “high conflict”. In some cases, that phrase is accurate. In others, it flattens domestic abuse into mutual hostility.

That matters because domestic abuse is about power, control, fear, restriction and harm. If a case is wrongly framed as mutual conflict, the protective lens can be lost. The court may then focus on encouraging communication or co-parenting without properly addressing risk.

This is why evidence has to be precise. The court needs to know whether it is dealing with two difficult adults who need boundaries, or a pattern of abuse where one person has used power and control against the other and/or the children.

The family court question is not simply: “Did the parents argue?”

The real safeguarding question is: has one person used behaviour to control, frighten, isolate, monitor, punish, exploit or dominate the other — and what does that mean for the child?

Domestic Abuse Protection Orders: still important, but not the whole answer

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders. These are intended to provide more flexible protection for victims. The DAPO pilot began in November 2024 and, according to the judiciary, has been piloted in areas including Greater Manchester, Croydon, Bromley, Sutton, Cleveland, North Wales and with the British Transport Police.

You can read the judiciary’s update here: Pilot starts for Domestic Abuse Protection Orders.

Protective orders matter. But they are not a substitute for proper understanding of abuse in the family court. A protective order may manage immediate risk. It does not, by itself, ensure that Cafcass, the court, local authorities or professionals properly understand the pattern of abuse or the impact on children.

What this inquiry should make every litigant in person ask

If you are representing yourself in a case involving domestic abuse, ask yourself:

Have I clearly identified the type or types of abuse alleged?
Have I separated domestic abuse from ordinary relationship conflict?
Have I shown the pattern over time?
Have I evidenced post-separation abuse?
Have I explained the impact on the children?
Have I asked for special measures if needed?
Have I challenged weak or incomplete safeguarding analysis?
Have I connected the evidence to the welfare checklist and the orders I am asking the court to make?

How to follow or contribute to the Committee’s work

The House of Lords Committee has invited interested individuals and organisations to submit views as part of its inquiry. The Committee cannot help with individual cases or complaints, but its work may influence how the Act is understood and whether reform is recommended.

You can find the Committee page here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee.

You can find the call for evidence here: Call for evidence launched into the impact of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The Committee has also provided the following contact email: hldomesticabuseact2021@parliament.uk.

Important

If you are in immediate danger, call 999. If you cannot speak, follow the silent solution procedure when prompted. If you are experiencing domestic abuse, consider contacting a specialist domestic abuse service for support before taking steps that may increase risk.

Final thought: the law must see the abuse people are actually living through

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important milestone. But legislation is only useful if it works in real life.

For litigants in person, the risk is that modern forms of abuse are still being missed, minimised or mislabelled. Economic abuse may be treated as money trouble. Tech abuse may be treated as paranoia. Spiritual abuse may be treated as a private belief issue. Honour-based abuse may be treated as family tension. Coercive control may be reduced to “communication problems”.

That is not good enough.

Children need courts and professionals who can recognise the full pattern of domestic abuse. Victims need a system that does not require them to be legally trained before they are believed. Litigants in person need clear information, practical tools and a court process that understands abuse beyond bruises.

This inquiry matters because it asks the right question: is the statutory definition of domestic abuse working?

For many people in the family court system, the honest answer may be: not well enough yet.

Need help presenting domestic abuse evidence in family court?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with structured case preparation, chronologies, position statements, C1A preparation, safeguarding issue summaries, hearing preparation and practical family court support.

The aim is simple: to help you present the evidence clearly, calmly and in a format the court can understand.

View JSH Law pricing

Useful links

About JSH Law

JSH Law provides practical litigation support for litigants in person, with a particular focus on family court preparation, safeguarding issues, domestic abuse allegations, child arrangements proceedings and court-ready documents.

JSH Law is not an SRA-regulated firm and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is focused on practical case preparation, procedural assistance and litigation support for people representing themselves.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a regulated solicitor, barrister or specialist domestic abuse service. Every family court case turns on its own facts, evidence, procedural history and safeguarding context.

Where this article refers to third-party organisations, Parliamentary material, charities, public bodies or media reports, those references are included for commentary and signposting purposes only. Inclusion does not imply endorsement, partnership or responsibility for third-party content.

Coercive Control Is Not “High Conflict”: How Legal Technology Could Help Victims Build Watertight Evidence

May 19, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Coercive Control/by jessica susan hill

Coercive control is one of the most misunderstood forms of domestic abuse in the family justice system. Too often, victims and protective parents are expected to prove a pattern of fear, domination, surveillance, financial pressure, emotional abuse and post-separation control through tools designed for isolated incidents. The result is predictable: the pattern is fragmented, the abuse is minimised, and the protective parent is too often labelled “high conflict”. But coercive control has structure. It leaves traces. It can be evidenced. And with careful, ethical use of legal technology, litigants in person may finally have a better way to organise the truth.

JSH Law | Family Court, Domestic Abuse & Legal Technology

Coercive Control Is Not “High Conflict”: How Technology Could Help Victims Build the Evidence the System Keeps Missing

For too long, coercive and controlling behaviour has been misunderstood, minimised, fragmented, and dismissed — particularly in private law children proceedings where one parent is trying to prove a pattern of abuse while the other presents the case as “just conflict”.

That has to change.

Coercive control is not a bad argument. It is not ordinary relationship breakdown. It is not two difficult people failing to co-parent. It is a pattern of domination, fear, isolation, degradation, surveillance, financial pressure, emotional manipulation, litigation abuse, threats, intimidation and control.

And patterns can be proved.

The question is whether victims — especially litigants in person — are being given the tools to prove them properly.

The central problem

The family court often asks victims to present coercive control through tools designed for isolated incidents. That is a structural problem.

A Scott Schedule may ask: “What happened? When? Where? What is your evidence?”

But coercive control often asks a different question:

What was the pattern, how did it escalate, what was the impact, how did it affect the children, and how did the perpetrator use systems, money, communication, parenting arrangements, technology, threats or court proceedings to maintain control?

Why coercive control is so hard to prove

Coercive control cases rarely arrive neatly packaged. Victims often have years of WhatsApp messages, emails, screenshots, school communications, police logs, medical notes, bank records, social media material, location issues, parenting handover disputes, threatening messages, apparently “polite” controlling emails, and a history of being worn down.

Looked at separately, each incident can be minimised:

“It was only a message.”
“It was only a disagreement about contact.”
“It was only about money.”
“It was only one argument.”
“There was no physical violence.”
“The police took no further action.”
“The CPS did not charge.”

That is precisely how coercive control disappears inside the justice system. It is broken into fragments until the pattern is lost.

Technology, used carefully and ethically, could help put that pattern back together.

1: The legislation — what the law actually says

Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76

The criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship is contained in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

In broad terms, the prosecution must prove that:

the defendant repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour towards another person;
the defendant and victim were personally connected at the time;
the behaviour had a serious effect on the victim;
the defendant knew or ought to have known that the behaviour would have a serious effect.

Domestic Abuse Act 2021

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created a statutory definition of domestic abuse which includes:

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

Post-separation abuse

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also amended the controlling or coercive behaviour offence so that, from 5 April 2023, it can apply to partners, ex-partners and family members even where they no longer live together. The updated Home Office statutory guidance explains this important change in the Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Statutory Guidance Framework.

Maximum sentence

The CPS confirms that the offence can be tried in the magistrates’ court or Crown Court and carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. See the CPS prosecution guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour.

The uncomfortable truth: low charge rates are being weaponised in family court

One of the most damaging arguments victims face in private law children proceedings is this:

“If it was really abuse, the police would have charged him.”

That argument is wrong.

A decision by police or CPS not to charge does not mean abuse did not happen. It may mean the evidential test was not met at that stage. It may mean the evidence was not gathered properly. It may mean the victim could not safely support a prosecution. It may mean the case was misunderstood as incidents rather than a course of conduct.

The Office for National Statistics recorded 49,557 offences of coercive control in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025. Yet Women’s Aid, relying on ONS criminal justice data, reports that in the year ending December 2024 there were 1,299 defendant proceedings and 853 offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour. See Women’s Aid: Coercive Control.

That gap matters. It shows why family courts must be very careful before treating “no charge” or “no conviction” as proof that the alleged abuse was false or irrelevant.

2: The statistics — the justice gap in coercive control cases

49,557 offences of coercive control were recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025, according to the ONS.
45,310 offences were recorded in the year ending March 2024, showing an increase in recorded coercive control offences.
1,299 defendant proceedings for controlling or coercive behaviour were reported for the year ending December 2024 by Women’s Aid, citing ONS data.
853 offenders were convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour in the year ending December 2024, according to the same Women’s Aid summary.
The CPS has reported year-on-year increases in charges and said that almost 5,000 coercive control offences were charged last year. See the CPS update: Rise in coercive control charges marks a decade of progress.

The point: coercive control is being recorded. It is being reported. It is increasingly being charged. But there remains a major gap between lived experience, police recording, prosecution and conviction.

What does it take to get a conviction for coercive control?

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high standard. It should be. A criminal conviction can remove liberty, affect employment, trigger safeguarding consequences, and lead to restraining orders or other protective measures.

But the high standard of proof does not mean coercive control is impossible to prove. It means the evidence must be properly built.

The CPS guidance makes clear that prosecutors should look at the pattern, the serious effect on the victim, the relationship context, previous allegations, overlapping offences, and all relevant material. That is where many cases fail before they ever reach trial: the evidential architecture is not properly assembled.

3: What the prosecution needs to prove

1. Repeated or continuous behaviour

The case cannot usually be built on one isolated act. The evidence must show a repeated or continuous course of conduct.

2. Personal connection

The parties must be personally connected under the statutory framework. This can include current partners, former partners, spouses, civil partners, relatives, and people who have or have had parental relationships in relation to the same child.

3. Serious effect

The behaviour must have a serious effect. This may include causing the victim to fear violence on at least two occasions, or causing serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

4. Knowledge

The defendant must know, or ought to know, that the behaviour would have a serious effect.

5. Public interest

The CPS must also consider whether prosecution is in the public interest under the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

What does a conviction mean in real terms?

A conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour is serious. It is not a minor label. It is a criminal finding that the offender repeatedly or continuously engaged in abusive behaviour which had a serious effect on the victim.

Depending on the sentence and circumstances, it may result in:

a custodial sentence, suspended sentence or community order;
a restraining order;
probation supervision;
MAPPA management in qualifying cases;
family court safeguarding consequences;
impact on child arrangements;
employment and professional consequences;
immigration, housing, firearms, DBS or regulatory consequences depending on the facts.

In February 2025, it was reported that offenders serving sentences of at least 12 months for controlling or coercive behaviour would be automatically managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. See The Guardian: Coercive control to be put on par with other types of domestic abuse.

4: Children are not “witnesses” only — they can be victims

This is one of the most important legal developments protective parents need to understand.

Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises that a child is a victim of domestic abuse if the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of the abuse and is related to the victim or perpetrator.

The CPS confirmed in 2022 that children affected by domestic abuse should be treated as victims, regardless of whether they were present during violent incidents. See CPS: Children classed as domestic abuse victims under new guidance.

This matters in family court because coercive control is not only about the adult victim. Children may be harmed by:

living in fear or tension;
being used as messengers;
being exposed to threats, shouting, surveillance or humiliation;
seeing one parent degraded or controlled;
being used as leverage in contact arrangements;
being manipulated into rejecting or policing the other parent;
having their routines, schooling, healthcare or emotional security disrupted;
being directly controlled, monitored or emotionally pressured.

The legal point: where children see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse, their welfare analysis must not treat them as bystanders. They may be victims in their own right.

The family court problem: coercive control is still too often mislabelled as “high conflict”

The phrase “high conflict” can be dangerous when used lazily.

High conflict suggests mutuality. It implies two adults locked in reciprocal hostility. But coercive control is not mutual conflict. It is an imbalance of power.

The victim may appear distressed, emotional, disorganised, angry or hypervigilant. The perpetrator may appear calm, articulate and reasonable. That does not make the victim unstable or the perpetrator safe. In some cases, it may be part of the pattern.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s “Everyday Business” report refers back to the Ministry of Justice Harm Panel and the need for a family court response that properly identifies and responds to domestic abuse in private law children proceedings.

The 2026 House of Commons Library briefing on child arrangements and domestic abuse records that it has been estimated that around 60% to 90% of child arrangements cases in the family court feature allegations of domestic abuse.

That should stop everyone in their tracks.

5: Why Scott Schedules can fail coercive control cases

Scott Schedules can be useful where the court needs a concise list of specific allegations. But they can be inadequate where the central allegation is a pattern of control.

A coercive control case needs more than a list of incidents. It needs:

a chronological timeline;
a pattern analysis;
a behaviour map;
a child impact section;
a post-separation abuse section;
a technology abuse section;
a financial/economic abuse section;
a litigation abuse section;
a cross-referenced evidence index;
a clear explanation of serious effect.

The court needs to see the architecture of control, not just the bricks.

Where legal technology could be groundbreaking

This is where properly designed legal technology could transform the evidential position for victims and protective parents.

Technology should not be used to invent allegations, exaggerate claims, coach witnesses or replace legal judgment. But it can be used to organise evidence, detect patterns, identify gaps, build chronologies, extract dates, categorise behaviours, cross-reference exhibits, and help litigants in person present their evidence coherently.

That is not a gimmick. That is access to justice.

6: The “watertight case” evidence architecture

A properly prepared coercive control evidence bundle should aim to show:

1. Pattern

What repeated behaviours occurred over time?

2. Escalation

Did the behaviour intensify after separation, after court proceedings, after new relationships, after police involvement, or after boundaries were set?

3. Tactics

Was the alleged perpetrator using money, children, communication, threats, surveillance, immigration status, housing, religion, family networks, professional status, court proceedings or technology to maintain control?

4. Impact

What was the effect on the adult victim’s day-to-day life, mental health, work, parenting, finances, safety, autonomy and decision-making?

5. Child impact

What did the children see, hear or experience? How did the behaviour affect their emotional security, behaviour, schooling, health, contact arrangements or relationship with either parent?

6. Corroboration

What independent material supports the account? Police logs, GP records, school emails, third-party messages, photographs, bank records, social care records, call logs, location data, screenshots, court orders, admissions, apology messages, or patterns in communications?

7. Serious effect

How does the evidence show fear, alarm, distress or a substantial adverse effect on ordinary daily life?

How AI and legal tech can help litigants in person prepare

Most litigants in person do not lose because they have no evidence. Many lose because their evidence is disorganised, overwhelming, mislabelled, emotionally presented, or not linked clearly to the legal test.

AI and legal technology can help by turning chaos into structure.

For example, technology can assist with:

extracting dates from messages and documents;
building a master chronology;
identifying repeated themes such as threats, isolation, financial control, surveillance or child-related manipulation;
separating direct evidence from interpretation;
linking each allegation to exhibits;
identifying missing documents;
preparing issue-based evidence indexes;
summarising long communication threads;
creating court-friendly tables;
spotting escalation points;
mapping post-separation abuse;
preparing focused questions for legal advice or direct access counsel.

7: Technology can help — but it must be used safely

Victims and protective parents should be careful before uploading sensitive evidence into any online tool.

Before using AI or legal tech with domestic abuse evidence, consider:

Does the tool store your data?
Can you delete your data?
Is the material confidential?
Are children’s names, addresses, schools or medical details included?
Is there a live court order restricting publication or disclosure?
Could the other party access your device, cloud account or email?
Do you need to redact documents first?
Are you accidentally sharing third-party personal data?
Are you preserving the original evidence and metadata?

Technology should support safeguarding. It should never create a new risk.

Recent developments show the law is moving — but the evidence problem remains

The last few years have shown increasing legal and public recognition of coercive control.

The CPS updated its guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour in 2025. The updated CPS prosecution guidance specifically addresses evidential considerations, gathering evidence, case building, suspect-centric approaches, charge selection, ancillary orders and what should happen where there is a decision not to charge.

The Home Office statutory guidance recognises that controlling or coercive behaviour may include economic abuse, technology-facilitated abuse, harassment, stalking and other related harms.

The CPS has also recognised the importance of emerging and complex forms of abuse. In 2026, reporting on new CPS guidance highlighted issues including honour-based abuse, dowry abuse, immigration-related exploitation, spiritual abuse and the need to identify emerging patterns of abuse. See The Guardian: CPS issues new guidance on honour-based and dowry abuse.

At the same time, public reporting continues to show how poorly coercive control may be understood by juries, professionals and wider society. See, for example, The Guardian: “But he didn’t hit you, did he?”, which explored the difficulty of presenting coercive control inside a courtroom.

The law is moving. But the evidential method has not caught up quickly enough.

For litigants in person: how to start preparing a coercive control case

If you are a litigant in person trying to show coercive control in family court, do not start by writing a long emotional statement. Start by building the evidence structure.

8: Practical checklist for protective parents and litigants in person

Step 1: Create a master chronology

List events in date order. Keep each entry factual. Include the date, what happened, who was present, evidence available, and impact.

Step 2: Preserve original evidence

Keep original screenshots, messages, emails, photographs, recordings, police references, GP notes and school communications. Do not edit originals.

Step 3: Identify patterns

Use categories such as threats, isolation, financial control, child-related control, surveillance, humiliation, intimidation, litigation abuse, post-separation abuse and third-party manipulation.

Step 4: Record the impact

Do not only record what the other person did. Record how it affected ordinary life: sleep, work, parenting, school runs, money, safety planning, communication, contact handovers and mental health.

Step 5: Separate evidence from opinion

“He is controlling” is a conclusion. “Between 4 January and 9 March he sent 126 messages asking where I was, who I was with, and threatening to stop child maintenance if I did not reply” is evidence.

Step 6: Prepare a child impact section

Record what the children saw, heard or experienced, and how it affected them. Keep this child-focused and welfare-focused.

Step 7: Cross-reference everything

Every allegation should link to an exhibit where possible. The court should not have to hunt for the evidence.

Step 8: Ask for the right procedural directions

In family proceedings, consider whether the court needs to address domestic abuse allegations under Practice Direction 12J, whether a fact-finding hearing is required, and whether special measures or safeguarding directions are needed.

The digital evidence that may matter

Modern coercive control is often digital. It may be hidden in ordinary-looking messages, repeated demands, location monitoring, banking restrictions, online humiliation, password access, device surveillance or the use of parenting apps as a mechanism of control.

Relevant digital evidence may include:

WhatsApp messages;
SMS messages;
emails;
call logs;
voicemails;
social media messages;
banking alerts;
shared calendar entries;
location tracking records;
AirTag or device notifications;
parenting app communications;
school portal communications;
photographs of damage or written notes;
screenshots of deleted or edited messages where properly preserved;
police reference numbers;
999 or 101 call records;
GP, counselling or domestic abuse service records.

The key is not volume. The key is relevance, organisation and pattern.

9: The difference between a pile of evidence and a case

A pile of evidence says: “Here are 400 screenshots.”

A prepared case says: “These 400 screenshots show a repeated pattern of surveillance, financial pressure, child-related threats and post-separation intimidation between January 2023 and May 2026. The most important examples are indexed at A1-A18. The serious effect is set out at paragraphs 42-56. The child impact is set out at paragraphs 57-68.”

That is the difference technology can help create.

What family courts need to understand

Family courts must stop treating coercive control as background noise.

If coercive control is proved, it may be directly relevant to:

the welfare checklist;
risk of harm;
the need for a fact-finding hearing;
interim contact arrangements;
safe handovers;
parenting apps and communication boundaries;
supervised or supported contact;
prohibited steps orders;
specific issue orders;
non-molestation orders;
occupation orders;
whether direct contact is safe;
whether a parent can prioritise the child’s welfare over control of the other parent.

A parent who controls, intimidates, monitors, threatens, degrades or destabilises the other parent may also be harming the child. The child does not need to be physically assaulted to be affected.

Why this matters for access to justice

Many victims and protective parents cannot afford a full legal team. Legal aid is limited. Direct access counsel can help, but barristers are often brought in late and need properly prepared papers. A barrister cannot magically turn years of disorganised evidence into a coherent case the night before a hearing.

This is why litigation support, document preparation and legal technology matter.

Litigants in person need practical help to:

understand the legal framework;
identify relevant evidence;
prepare chronologies;
structure statements;
prepare bundles;
brief direct access barristers properly;
avoid emotional overloading;
present child-focused, evidence-based arguments;
ask the court for appropriate directions.

The headline point

Coercive control is not too complex to prove.

It is too often presented using tools that are too narrow to reveal it.

Legal technology could help victims and protective parents show the court what the abuse actually is: not a list of isolated incidents, but a system of control.

What should change next?

If the justice system is serious about coercive control, then family courts, police, prosecutors, lawyers, McKenzie Friend services, domestic abuse organisations and legal technologists need to work from the same starting point:

The pattern is the evidence.

That means we need better tools for:

pattern-based chronologies;
domestic abuse evidence mapping;
child impact analysis;
post-separation abuse tracking;
technology-facilitated abuse identification;
safe digital evidence storage;
court-ready bundle preparation;
direct access barrister briefing;
litigant in person guidance.

We do not need technology that replaces legal judgment. We need technology that helps victims preserve, organise and present the truth.

Final word

Coercive control thrives in confusion. It thrives when incidents are separated from context. It thrives when victims are exhausted, disbelieved, priced out, procedurally overwhelmed and told they are “high conflict”.

But coercive control has structure.

It leaves traces.

It creates patterns.

It affects children.

It can be evidenced.

And if the family justice system is going to protect children and victims properly, it must become far better at seeing the whole picture.

Need help preparing a coercive control chronology or family court evidence bundle?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with structured litigation support, court document preparation, chronologies, witness statement preparation, bundle organisation and hearing preparation in private law children proceedings.

We do not replace solicitors or barristers. We help litigants in person get organised, understand the process, and present their evidence clearly.

If you are dealing with coercive control, domestic abuse allegations, safeguarding issues or a complex child arrangements case, early preparation matters.

View our pricing or contact JSH Law to discuss support.

How I Can Help

I provide independent, procedural family court support for litigants in person and professionals navigating complex or high-conflict cases.

My work focuses on:

– Case strategy and procedural clarity

– Evidence review, chronology building, and issue framing

– Statement drafting and refinement

– Court-ready bundles and document compliance

– Support alongside solicitors, counsel, or directly with litigants in person

Support is provided remotely, on an hourly basis, with clear boundaries and no false promises.

This is about structure, preparation, and informed decision-making.

Book a Case Review

About the Author

Free Resource

Authorities Used

– Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955 (U.K.), rr. 1.1, 1.3, pts. 3, 6, 17, 22, 25, 9.
– Practice Direction 3A (MIAM).
– Practice Direction 12B (Child Arrangements Programme).
– Practice Direction 12J (Domestic Abuse and Harm).
– Practice Direction 22A (Evidence).
– Practice Direction 27A (Court Bundles).
– Children Act 1989, c. 41 (U.K.)

Latest news

Family Law Technologists: Where AI Meets Evidence, Safeguarding and Justice. My Two Penneth.July 24, 2026 - 2:54 pm
Artificial intelligence could make legal help more affordable and accessible—particularly for litigants in person. But in family law, where cases involve children, domestic abuse, confidential evidence and safeguarding risk, accuracy and human judgment are essential. Jessica Susan Hill examines the “fine structure of justice” and the six principles that must govern responsible legal AI.
How to Write a Position Statement for Family Court: A Practical Guide for Litigants in PersonJuly 19, 2026 - 8:04 pm
A practical guide to writing a family court position statement, including the current three-page rule, recommended structure, child-focused language, filing guidance and an adaptable template for litigants in person.
The Family Court Case Audit: 12 Documents to Organise Before Asking for HelpJuly 18, 2026 - 9:31 pm
A practical 12-part family court document checklist for litigants in person. Organise orders, applications, statements, reports, evidence, correspondence and deadlines before asking someone to review your case.