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