SAFECHAIN™ Consultation Response
Financial Remedies Reform: Recognition of Domestic Abuse in Financial Settlements
Submitted by:
SAFECHAIN™
Systems Reform | Safeguarding | Governance | Institutional Accountability
Executive Summary
SAFECHAIN™ welcomes the Government's proposal to strengthen the recognition of domestic abuse within financial remedy proceedings.
Domestic abuse does not end when a relationship ends.
Its financial, psychological and institutional consequences often continue for years, particularly where coercive control, economic abuse and litigation abuse intersect.
Current financial remedy proceedings remain largely designed around identifying assets and assessing future needs. They are considerably less effective at identifying patterns of coercive behaviour that deliberately distort financial disclosure, manipulate legal processes and prolong economic dependency.
The consultation therefore presents an opportunity not simply to amend Section 25 considerations, but to modernise how family courts identify risk, credibility, disclosure integrity and institutional safeguarding.
SAFECHAIN™ recommends moving beyond incident-based assessment towards a whole-system evaluation of cumulative harm.
1. Domestic Abuse is a Financial Issue
Domestic abuse frequently produces long-term economic consequences that extend well beyond separation.
These include:
economic abuse
coerced debt
career disruption
loss of earnings
destruction of businesses
housing insecurity
prolonged litigation costs
reduced pension accumulation
ongoing health-related financial losses
Financial remedy decisions should therefore recognise abuse as a factor affecting both present and future financial capacity.
2. Coercive Control Must Be Treated as a Pattern, Not an Event
Coercive control rarely presents as a single incident.
Instead, it operates through cumulative behaviours including:
financial restriction
intimidation
surveillance
withholding information
manipulation of disclosure
strategic litigation
reputational attacks
legal process abuse
Courts should be encouraged to evaluate behavioural patterns across the entire relationship rather than isolated allegations.
This reflects the statutory understanding of coercive control within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
3. Economic Abuse Requires Independent Recognition
Economic abuse is frequently underestimated during financial remedy proceedings.
Examples include:
concealment of assets
manipulation of business structures
false representations of income
undisclosed director benefits
misuse of company accounts
strategic debt creation
withholding financial documents
interference with employment
Where economic abuse is established, courts should be empowered to draw stronger adverse inferences regarding disclosure failures.
4. Disclosure Integrity Should Become a Core Judicial Consideration
SAFECHAIN™ recommends introducing a formal Disclosure Integrity Assessment.
Courts should evaluate:
completeness of disclosure
consistency across documents
timing of disclosure
unexplained omissions
changes in financial narratives
third-party involvement
company structures
digital financial evidence
Disclosure should be assessed as an indicator of credibility rather than merely an administrative exercise.
5. Institutional Fragmentation Increases Risk
Financial remedy proceedings often rely upon fragmented information held across multiple agencies.
Relevant evidence may exist within:
police records
social care
HMRC
Companies House
safeguarding agencies
domestic abuse services
criminal courts
civil courts
family courts
Yet these systems rarely communicate effectively.
The result is that judges frequently determine financial outcomes using incomplete information.
SAFECHAIN™ recommends improved cross-agency information pathways where legally appropriate, alongside stronger mechanisms for considering corroborative evidence from multiple sources.
6. Litigation Abuse Must Be Recognised
Post-separation abuse frequently continues through legal proceedings.
Examples include:
repeated applications
strategic delays
disclosure obstruction
excessive correspondence
procedural manipulation
misuse of expert evidence
financial exhaustion of the survivor
Litigation abuse should be expressly recognised as a continuation of coercive control.
7. Trauma-Informed Financial Justice
Trauma affects participation.
Survivors may:
struggle to recall timelines
experience memory fragmentation
become overwhelmed during disclosure
avoid confrontation
understate abuse
appear inconsistent despite telling the truth
Judicial training should incorporate trauma-informed practice to avoid misinterpreting trauma responses as unreliability.
8. Judicial Training
SAFECHAIN™ recommends mandatory training covering:
coercive control
economic abuse
trauma psychology
disclosure manipulation
financial coercion
litigation abuse
safeguarding duties
cumulative harm assessment
Training should emphasise behavioural analysis rather than reliance upon isolated incidents.
9. Recommendations
SAFECHAIN™ recommends that the Government:
Recognise coercive control as relevant to financial remedy outcomes.
Formally recognise economic abuse within Section 25 assessments.
Introduce Disclosure Integrity Assessments.
Recognise litigation abuse as a continuation of domestic abuse.
Improve cross-agency information sharing where legally appropriate.
Develop cumulative harm assessment models.
Strengthen judicial training in coercive control and trauma.
Encourage structured consideration of behavioural patterns rather than isolated events.
Embed safeguarding principles throughout financial remedy proceedings.
Monitor implementation through ongoing research and evaluation.
Conclusion
Financial justice cannot be achieved solely through the equitable division of assets.
It requires courts to understand how coercive control reshapes financial reality, distorts disclosure, prolongs dependency and undermines equal participation.
Recognising domestic abuse within financial remedies is therefore not simply a question of fairness between parties. It is an essential component of safeguarding, procedural justice and public confidence in the family justice system.
SAFECHAIN™ welcomes the consultation and encourages reforms that move beyond individual incidents towards recognising the cumulative, systemic and enduring impact of coercive control and economic abuse.
Disclosure Integrity™ – assessing the quality, completeness and reliability of financial disclosure.
Participation Integrity™– ensuring both parties can participate effectively, particularly where trauma, abuse or power imbalance affects engagement.
Institutional Fragmentation™– recognising how disconnected public systems can obscure patterns of harm.
The Cumulative Harm Model™– evaluating abuse as an evolving pattern with long-term financial, psychological and institutional consequences rather than isolated incidents.
Copyright Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
This consultation response is an original work authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen and published under SAFECHAIN™. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for review, academic commentary, or other purposes permitted by applicable copyright law.
SAFECHAIN™, Disclosure Integrity™, Participation Integrity™, Institutional Fragmentation™, Cumulative Harm Model™, and associated methodologies are proprietary intellectual property of SAFECHAINN Ltd.
SAFECHAINN Ltd is committed to advancing safeguarding, governance, institutional accountability, and systems reform through independent research, policy development, professional education, and evidence-informed frameworks.