Coercive Control, Economic Abuse and the Constitutional Crisis Emerging Inside Family Justice

DB v PB [2016]

Coercive Control, Economic Abuse and the Constitutional Crisis Emerging Inside Family Justice

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen FRSA
Founder — SAFECHAIN™ Policy & Innovation Initiative

For decades, family justice systems approached financial remedy proceedings through the language of arithmetic rather than the language of power.

The central questions were traditionally framed as:

• What assets exist?

• What liabilities exist?

• What level of maintenance is appropriate?

• How should property be divided?

• Can a clean break be achieved?

The procedural structure itself assumed that both parties entered proceedings with relatively equal access to:

• information,

• financial understanding,

• participation capacity,

• and psychological stability.

But modern domestic abuse analysis increasingly demonstrates that this assumption is often fundamentally false.

DB v PB [2016] became significant because it contributed to a growing judicial recognition that coercive control does not merely affect relationships — it affects the integrity of financial proceedings themselves.

This distinction is critical.

The issue is no longer simply whether abuse occurred within a relationship. The deeper issue is whether the legal process itself is capable of recognising the structural consequences of coercive control once litigation begins.

The Financial System as a Continuation of Coercive Control

One of the greatest misconceptions within family law has been the tendency to treat financial harm as secondary to physical or emotional abuse.

In reality, economic abuse is often the operational infrastructure through which coercive control survives separation.

The abuse may continue through:

• debt creation;

• financial dependency;

• restricted access to accounts;

• mortgage manipulation;

• concealment of assets;

• strategic litigation;

• reputational destabilisation;

• housing insecurity;

• and procedural exhaustion.

The victim may arrive before the court already financially depleted, psychologically exhausted, and structurally disadvantaged.

Yet historically, courts often treated that weakened position as neutral background context rather than as evidence of coercive dynamics requiring safeguarding analysis.

This is where DB v PB [2016] remains so important.

The case contributed to an emerging legal understanding that coercive and controlling behaviour can directly distort:

• bargaining power,

• litigation participation,

• disclosure processes,

• financial settlements,

• and post-separation outcomes.

The Myth of Procedural Equality

Family courts frequently operate on the assumption that both parties stand before the court on relatively equal footing.

However, coercive control fundamentally undermines equality of arms.

A survivor of prolonged coercive behaviour may:

• lack access to financial records;

• fear retaliation for disclosure;

• experience trauma-related cognitive impairment;

• struggle to challenge inconsistencies;

• or agree to unsafe settlements simply to end proceedings.

The legal system often interprets these realities incorrectly.

Trauma responses may be mistaken for:

• inconsistency,

• emotional instability,

• disengagement,

• hostility,

• or lack of credibility.

At the same time, the controlling party may appear:

• calm,

• organised,

• financially informed,

• and procedurally sophisticated.

This creates a dangerous structural imbalance:
the very effects of coercive control may weaken the survivor’s presentation while strengthening the appearance of legitimacy surrounding the controlling party.

That is not merely a personal injustice.
It is a constitutional problem within procedural fairness itself.

Economic Abuse and the Production of “Coercive Debt”

Perhaps one of the most overlooked dimensions of domestic abuse is coercive debt.

Coercive debt refers to liabilities generated through:

• coercion,

• manipulation,

• intimidation,

• dependency,

• litigation pressure,

• or economically abusive conduct.

This may include:

• joint debts accumulated through pressure;

• coerced guarantees;

• credit damage linked to abuse;

• mortgage arrears arising from financial control;

• legal costs weaponised through attritional litigation;

• or debts arising after separation through strategic economic destabilisation.

Historically, courts often treated debt as mathematically neutral.

But modern safeguarding analysis increasingly recognises that debt itself may become:

• a continuation of abuse,

• a mechanism of control,

• and a barrier to participation in justice.

This is where the importance of DB v PB [2016] extends far beyond a single dispute.

The case forms part of the wider evolution toward recognising that fairness cannot be assessed purely through financial schedules detached from behavioural realities.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Structural Harm

The principles reflected in DB v PB [2016] gained further force through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The Act represented a major legal development because it formally recognised economic abuse as domestic abuse.

This matters enormously.

Economic abuse is no longer merely:

• emotional context,

• relationship conflict,

• or financial disagreement.

It is a recognised safeguarding harm capable of affecting:

• housing stability;

• procedural participation;

• financial independence;

• credit access;

• and long-term economic survival.

Yet despite this statutory recognition, many institutional systems still operate as though economic abuse is conceptually peripheral rather than structurally central.

That disconnect creates serious safeguarding failures across:

• courts,

• banking,

• housing,

• credit systems,

• and enforcement frameworks.

Litigation as a Mechanism of Harm

One of the most uncomfortable realities emerging within modern family justice is that litigation itself may become a mechanism through which coercive control continues.

This may occur through:

• repeated applications;

• disclosure overwhelm;

• procedural delay;

• strategic cost escalation;

• evidential imbalance;

• or prolonged financial attrition.

The process becomes punishing independently of the final order.

In some cases, the legal system may inadvertently formalise the very inequality created by the abusive dynamics preceding the litigation.

That is why the conversation surrounding DB v PB [2016] remains profoundly important.

The issue is not whether courts are intentionally causing harm.
The issue is whether current procedural frameworks are sufficiently equipped to identify how coercive control operates structurally within financial litigation itself.

The Future of Family Justice

The future of fair financial remedy proceedings cannot rely solely on disclosure forms and asset schedules.

The system must increasingly recognise:

• participation impairment;

• trauma-informed procedure;

• coercive debt;

• economic abuse;

• litigation attrition;

• and structural inequality of arms.

This requires more than awareness.

It requires institutional redesign.

It requires safeguarding continuity between:

• courts,

• banks,

• housing systems,

• credit agencies,

• and enforcement structures.

Most importantly, it requires a justice system willing to confront a difficult constitutional reality:

A process cannot truly be fair if coercive control has already distorted one party’s ability to participate before proceedings even begin.

That is the deeper significance of DB v PB [2016].

The case helped open the legal conversation around economic abuse and coercive financial harm.

The challenge now is whether institutions are prepared to evolve fast enough to respond to what the law is already beginning to recognise.

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAIN™ Policy & Innovation Initiative
SAFECHAIN™ Intelligence Hub
silent-screams-loud-strength | Unmasking Justice

#DomesticAbuse #EconomicAbuse #CoerciveControl #DBvPB #FamilyJustice #FinancialRemedy #Article6 #ProceduralFairness #ParticipationIntegrity #LitigationAbuse #TraumaInformedJustice #FamilyCourtReform #SAFECHAIN #HumanRights #DomesticAbuseAct2021