Rethinking Domestic Abuse Safeguarding

A Policy Exploration of Coercive Control and Systemic Reform

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Domestic abuse has historically been conceptualised through the lens of physical violence. However, contemporary scholarship and legal developments recognise that many victims experience sustained domination through coercive control — patterns of behaviour designed to restrict autonomy and regulate the victim’s environment. Drawing upon statutory recognition under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the theoretical framework developed by Evan Stark, this paper examines coercive control as a structural intrusion into cognitive and behavioural autonomy.

The analysis explores how coercive control operates psychologically, why evidentiary frameworks within family courts struggle to capture its dynamics, and how fragmentation across safeguarding institutions limits effective responses. The paper concludes by proposing the SAFECHAIN™ framework as a conceptual model for improving safeguarding continuity, institutional coordination, and trauma-informed responses to domestic abuse.

1. Introduction

Domestic abuse discourse has traditionally focused on visible violence as the primary marker of harm. Legal intervention, policing strategies, and public awareness campaigns have frequently centred on incidents involving physical injury or immediate threat.

However, a growing body of research suggests that many abusive relationships are characterised less by episodic violence and more by sustained patterns of domination that regulate victims’ behaviour and autonomy over time. Sociological research on coercive control has therefore reframed domestic abuse as a course of conduct that restricts liberty and produces conditions of entrapment.¹

The UK has responded to these developments through legislative reform. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was first introduced under the Serious Crime Act 2015 and subsequently expanded within the statutory definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.²

Despite these developments, institutional responses remain uneven. Survivors frequently report difficulty evidencing coercive control within legal proceedings, particularly in family courts where evidentiary frameworks remain largely incident-based.

This paper argues that coercive control must be understood not only as interpersonal abuse but also as a structural safeguarding challenge requiring coordinated institutional responses.

2. Coercive Control as Psychological Domination

The concept of coercive control was developed extensively by sociologist Evan Stark, who argued that domestic abuse often functions as a pattern of domination designed to deprive victims of autonomy and liberty.³

Unlike episodic violence, coercive control is characterised by repeated behaviours that regulate everyday life. These behaviours may include financial restriction, surveillance, isolation from social networks, and psychological destabilisation.

Stark describes coercive control as a form of liberty crime, emphasising that the harm lies not only in physical injury but in the systematic restriction of freedom.⁴

Victims may therefore experience a gradual restructuring of their environment in which independence becomes increasingly difficult to exercise.

3. The Invasion of Cognitive Freedom

A central feature of coercive control is its impact on cognitive autonomy.

Survivors often describe living in environments where decision-making is constrained by anticipated consequences. Routine activities—meeting friends, making purchases, pursuing employment—become subject to scrutiny and potential retaliation.

Criminological research has documented how prolonged exposure to coercive environments can produce hyper-vigilance, cognitive fatigue, and erosion of self-confidence.⁵

These responses are adaptive rather than pathological. They reflect the psychological burden of navigating an environment structured around domination.

Understanding coercive control as an intrusion into cognitive freedom helps explain why victims may appear outwardly functional while internally experiencing significant psychological strain.

4. Evidentiary Challenges in Family Court Proceedings

Despite legislative recognition of coercive control, evidentiary challenges remain significant.

Family courts traditionally evaluate disputes through discrete allegations supported by specific evidence. However, coercive control operates through cumulative patterns rather than isolated incidents.

This structural mismatch has been recognised in judicial commentary. In Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings), the Court of Appeal acknowledged that coercive and controlling behaviour may manifest through patterns requiring contextual evaluation rather than incident-based analysis.⁶

The judgment emphasised the importance of examining the wider relational context when assessing allegations of domestic abuse.

Earlier case law also illustrates judicial recognition of coercive patterns. In Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow, the UK Supreme Court interpreted domestic violence broadly to include threatening or controlling behaviour rather than solely physical violence.⁷

However, despite these developments, survivors frequently report difficulty presenting patterns of coercive control within evidentiary frameworks designed for incident-based litigation.

5. Institutional Fragmentation in Safeguarding Systems

Domestic abuse survivors frequently interact with multiple agencies simultaneously, including police, family courts, housing authorities, healthcare providers, and social services.

Each institution may possess partial information about the survivor’s circumstances. However, communication between these agencies is often limited.

Research on safeguarding systems has identified institutional fragmentation as a major barrier to effective responses to domestic abuse.⁸ When information remains siloed within separate agencies, patterns of coercive control may remain undetected.

Survivors may also be required to repeat traumatic narratives across multiple institutional encounters, increasing the risk of secondary trauma.

6. The SAFECHAIN™ Safeguarding Model

To address these challenges, the SAFECHAIN™ framework proposes a conceptual model designed to strengthen safeguarding continuity across institutional systems.

SAFECHAIN™ Model Overview

┌──────────────────────────┐
│ Survivor Experience │
│ (Coercive Environment) │
└────────────┬─────────────┘
│
┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐
│ │ │
Police Services Family Courts Healthcare
│ │ │
└───────────────┬───┴───┬───────────────┘
│ │
Housing Authorities
│
Social Support Services
│
Advocacy Organisations
│
SAFECHAIN™ Layer
(Safeguarding Continuity & Data Flow)
│
Cross-Institution Coordination
│
Trauma-Informed Response

Core Principles

1. Continuity of Safeguarding Information
   Relevant information follows the survivor across institutions.

2. Cross-Agency Communication Pathways
   Systems are designed to recognise patterns of abuse rather than isolated incidents.

3. Trauma-Informed Institutional Processes
   Procedures account for the cognitive impact of prolonged coercion.

4. Procedural Accountability
   Safeguarding responses remain consistent across agencies.

Conclusion

Domestic abuse cannot be understood solely through the framework of physical violence.

For many survivors, the defining feature of abuse is the gradual erosion of autonomy through coercive control. This process restructures the victim’s environment, occupies cognitive space, and restricts freedom of action.

While legislative developments such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represent significant progress, challenges remain in translating legal recognition into effective institutional responses.

Addressing coercive control therefore requires both psychological insight and structural reform.

The SAFECHAIN™ framework illustrates how safeguarding systems might move toward greater institutional coordination and continuity, enabling more effective responses to the complex realities of domestic abuse.

References

1. Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press 2007).

2. Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

3. Evan Stark, ‘Re-Presenting Woman Battering: From Battered Woman Syndrome to Coercive Control’ (1995) 58 Albany Law Review 973.

4. Evan Stark, ‘Looking Beyond Domestic Violence: Policing Coercive Control’ (2012) 12 Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 199.

5. Emma Katz, Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives (Oxford University Press 2022).

6. Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.

7. Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3.

8. Marianne Hester, ‘The Three Planet Model: Towards an Understanding of Contradictions in Approaches to Women and Children’s Safety in Contexts of Domestic Violence’ (2011) British Journal of Social Work.