Rethinking Domestic Abuse Safeguarding

Coercive Control, Cognitive Autonomy, and Structural Reform

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Domestic abuse has historically been conceptualised through the lens of physical violence. Yet contemporary criminological and socio-legal research demonstrates that many abusive relationships are defined not by episodic violence but by sustained patterns of coercive control that restrict autonomy and entrap victims within environments of domination. Legislative developments in the United Kingdom, particularly the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, reflect increasing recognition of coercive behaviour as a central component of domestic abuse. However, institutional responses frequently struggle to recognise these patterns within legal proceedings, particularly in family courts.

This article examines coercive control as both a psychological phenomenon and a structural safeguarding challenge. Drawing upon the theoretical framework developed by Evan Stark and subsequent criminological scholarship, the paper explores how coercive environments reshape cognitive autonomy and decision-making. It further analyses evidentiary challenges within family court procedures, highlighting structural limitations in incident-based litigation models.

The article also examines institutional fragmentation across safeguarding systems, including policing, healthcare, housing authorities, and child-welfare services, with particular attention to the role of Cafcass. Comparative developments in Australia and the United States are analysed to illustrate emerging international approaches to coercive control legislation.

The paper concludes by introducing the SAFECHAIN™ safeguarding framework as a conceptual model for improving continuity of information, cross-agency coordination, and trauma-informed responses to coercive abuse. By reframing domestic abuse as both a psychological and systemic problem, the article contributes to broader debates on safeguarding reform and the future of domestic abuse policy.

1. Introduction

Domestic abuse remains a significant legal and social challenge in the United Kingdom. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that approximately 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the year ending March 2023. Women constitute the majority of victims, though abuse affects individuals across genders and demographic groups.

Public understanding of domestic abuse has historically centred on physical violence. Campaigns, policing strategies, and legal responses have traditionally prioritised incidents involving visible harm. However, a growing body of research suggests that many abusive relationships are characterised by sustained patterns of coercive control rather than discrete episodes of violence.

These patterns operate through behavioural regulation, psychological manipulation, economic restriction, and social isolation. The cumulative effect of such behaviours is the gradual erosion of autonomy.

Understanding coercive control therefore requires examining not only interpersonal dynamics but also the institutional systems responsible for safeguarding victims.

2. Coercive Control as a Structural Form of Domination

The concept of coercive control was articulated most prominently by sociologist Evan Stark. Stark argued that domestic abuse should be understood as a course of conduct designed to entrap victims and deprive them of liberty.

Rather than focusing solely on violent incidents, coercive control operates through:

• surveillance and monitoring

• economic restriction

• social isolation

• psychological intimidation

• behavioural regulation

Stark describes coercive control as a “liberty crime,” emphasising that the central harm lies in the systematic restriction of freedom rather than solely physical injury.

This framework represents a significant shift from traditional models of domestic violence.

3. Psychological and Cognitive Effects of Coercive Environments

Coercive control affects victims not only through external restrictions but also through psychological mechanisms that reshape cognitive functioning.

Research in trauma psychology demonstrates that individuals exposed to sustained coercive environments often experience:

• hyper-vigilance

• chronic stress responses

• reduced confidence in personal judgement

• difficulties recalling specific incidents within broader patterns of abuse

Emma Katz’s work on coercive control highlights how these dynamics affect both adult victims and children within abusive households.

Victims may remain outwardly functional while privately navigating environments characterised by constant behavioural monitoring.

4. Legislative Recognition of Coercive Control

The United Kingdom has increasingly recognised coercive behaviour within domestic abuse law. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was first introduced under the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Subsequently, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expanded the statutory definition of domestic abuse to include psychological, emotional, and economic abuse.

Section 1 of the Act recognises domestic abuse as behaviour including:

• physical abuse

• psychological abuse

• economic abuse

• controlling or coercive behaviour

This legislative recognition reflects growing awareness that abuse may occur without physical violence.

5. Case Law Developments

UK courts have increasingly acknowledged coercive control in domestic abuse proceedings.

Key cases include:

Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of examining patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents.

Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3
The Supreme Court interpreted domestic violence broadly to include threatening and controlling behaviour.

F v M (Litigants in Person: Timely Justice) [2021] EWFC 4
The High Court recognised prolonged coercive control within family proceedings.

These decisions demonstrate increasing judicial recognition of coercive abuse.

6. Evidentiary Challenges in Family Courts

Despite legislative developments, evidentiary challenges remain significant.

Family courts are traditionally structured around adversarial litigation models that prioritise discrete allegations supported by documentary evidence.

Coercive control, however, unfolds gradually and often leaves limited documentary evidence.

Survivors may struggle to reconstruct complex patterns of abuse within legal proceedings. Psychological stress may also affect memory recall and narrative coherence.

The Court of Appeal in Re H-N acknowledged these difficulties and encouraged courts to consider the broader context of relationships when evaluating domestic abuse allegations.

7. Institutional Fragmentation in Safeguarding Systems

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

Each institution may hold partial information regarding the survivor’s circumstances. However, communication between these agencies is frequently limited.

This fragmentation increases the risk that patterns of coercive abuse will remain undetected.

Survivors may also be required to recount traumatic experiences repeatedly across different institutional settings.

8. Critique of CAFCASS and Safeguarding Procedures

The role of Cafcass is central to safeguarding children within family court proceedings.

However, several structural challenges have been identified:

1. Incident-Based Assessment Models
   Risk assessments often prioritise discrete incidents rather than long-term patterns of coercion.

2. Resource Constraints
   High caseloads may limit the depth of contextual analysis.

3. Fragmented Information Systems
   Relevant information may be dispersed across multiple agencies.

4. Adversarial Litigation Context
   The legal structure of family courts may prioritise evidentiary disputes over safeguarding analysis.

These factors may limit institutional recognition of coercive control.

9. Comparative Law: Australia and the United States

Australia

Australia has introduced legislative reforms addressing coercive control. New South Wales enacted legislation in 2022 criminalising coercive control as a distinct offence.

Policy debates emphasise recognising patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents.

United States

Domestic abuse law in the United States remains primarily state-based. While criminalisation of coercive control remains limited, several states increasingly recognise patterns of coercive behaviour within child custody determinations.

Courts may consider psychological abuse and coercive control when assessing parental fitness.

10. SAFECHAIN™ Safeguarding Framework

The SAFECHAIN™ model proposes an institutional infrastructure designed to improve safeguarding continuity across agencies.

SAFECHAIN™ Model

Survivor Context
(Environment of Coercive Control)
│
▼
Institutional Interfaces
(Police, Courts, Healthcare, Housing)
│
▼
Cross-Agency Information Flow
│
▼
SAFECHAIN™ Core Infrastructure
(Safeguarding Continuity System)
│
▼
Pattern Recognition of Abuse
│
▼
Trauma-Informed Institutional Response

The framework emphasises continuity of safeguarding information and coordinated institutional responses.

Conclusion

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

For many survivors, the defining feature of abuse lies in the gradual erosion of autonomy through coercive control.

While legislative reforms such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represent significant progress, institutional responses continue to face structural challenges.

Addressing coercive abuse requires both psychological insight and structural reform.

The SAFECHAIN™ framework illustrates how safeguarding systems might evolve toward greater institutional coordination and continuity.

References

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

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

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

Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3

F v M (Litigants in Person: Timely Justice) [2021] EWFC 4

Office for National Statistics, Domestic Abuse in England and Wales Overview 2023

Domestic Abuse