When the Law Finally Found the Right Word
Why the Recognition of 'Gaslighting' Marks a Significant Moment for Family Justice
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
For decades, survivors of domestic abuse have described an experience that was both deeply personal and extraordinarily difficult to explain.
They knew what had happened.
They knew they had been manipulated.
They knew their confidence had been systematically dismantled.
Yet when they attempted to explain that experience, the language often failed them.
How do you describe someone convincing you that your memories cannot be trusted?
How do you explain being repeatedly told that your perception of reality is wrong?
How do you prove psychological harm that leaves no visible injury?
The answer increasingly recognised by psychology—and now by the courts—is gaslighting.
In 2022, the term "gaslighting" was used in a published High Court family judgment for the first time. Mr Justice Stephen Cobb accepted the description as "apposite" in a case involving coercive and controlling behaviour, describing conduct designed to make the victim question her own mental wellbeing and sanity. Barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman described the judgment as a milestone because it gave judicial recognition to a form of abuse survivors had long experienced but often struggled to articulate.
Why Words Matter
The law depends upon language.
Legal concepts shape how evidence is understood.
They influence judicial reasoning.
They guide professional practice.
They inform safeguarding assessments.
Before behaviour can be recognised consistently, it must first be capable of being described consistently.
Naming gaslighting does not create a new form of abuse.
It creates a shared legal vocabulary for recognising one that already exists.
Gaslighting Is More Than Manipulation
Gaslighting is often misunderstood as simply lying.
It is considerably more serious than that.
Its purpose is not merely to deceive.
Its purpose is to destabilise.
A victim may gradually begin to question:
their memory;
their judgement;
their emotional responses;
their credibility;
ultimately, their own reality.
The effect is cumulative.
Confidence is eroded.
Decision-making becomes impaired.
Self-trust diminishes.
This is precisely why gaslighting is closely associated with coercive and controlling behaviour.
Recognition Is Not the End of the Journey
The inclusion of the term in a High Court judgment was undoubtedly significant.
But recognition alone is not reform.
The more important question is:
How should institutions respond once they recognise gaslighting?
Recognition must be followed by capability.
Professionals need training.
Risk assessments need to reflect psychological abuse.
Safeguarding frameworks need to identify patterns rather than isolated incidents.
Institutions need mechanisms that enable psychological abuse to be understood consistently rather than treated as subjective disagreement.
From Language to Governance
SAFECHAIN™ approaches this issue from a governance perspective.
The question is not simply whether courts understand gaslighting.
The question is whether institutions are capable of responding consistently when it is identified.
Recognition should influence:
safeguarding practice;
judicial education;
professional training;
institutional policy;
evidence assessment;
participation of vulnerable parties.
Without operational capability, new terminology changes very little.
The Future of Family Justice
The recognition of gaslighting demonstrates that family justice continues to evolve alongside developments in psychology and domestic abuse research.
That evolution should continue.
Not because terminology changes outcomes by itself.
But because accurate language allows institutions to recognise harm more effectively.
Justice depends upon seeing abuse for what it is—not only when it leaves visible injuries, but also when it quietly dismantles a person's confidence, autonomy and sense of reality.
Conclusion
The first judicial use of the word gaslighting was important because it acknowledged something survivors had known for years.
Psychological abuse can be every bit as destructive as physical violence.
Giving that abuse a recognised legal description is an important step.
The greater challenge now is ensuring that recognition becomes consistent practice across family justice, safeguarding and public institutions.
The measure of progress will not be how often the word appears in judgments.
It will be whether survivors experience systems that understand the reality the word was created to describe.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).