The Family Court Cannot Afford to Misunderstand Coercive Control
THE DIRECTIVE™
The Family Court Cannot Afford to Misunderstand Coercive Control
Why recognising patterns of abuse is no longer optional
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Introduction
Family courts make some of the most consequential decisions within the justice system.
They determine where children will live.
How parents will share responsibility.
Whether allegations of domestic abuse are established.
Whether vulnerable adults require protection.
Whether future contact between family members is safe.
These decisions influence lives for years, often decades.
For that reason, the justice system must be capable of recognising domestic abuse not only when it is visible, but also when it operates through patterns of coercion, manipulation and psychological control.
The challenge facing modern family justice is no longer whether coercive control exists.
Parliament has already answered that question.
The challenge is whether institutions consistently recognise it when making decisions that affect children and vulnerable adults.
That is not merely a legal question.
It is a governance question.
Domestic Abuse Has Changed. Institutional Thinking Must Change Too.
For generations, domestic abuse was commonly understood through the lens of physical violence.
Bruises.
Broken bones.
Police call-outs.
Emergency injunctions.
Those remain serious indicators of abuse.
But they are no longer the only indicators recognised by law.
Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 recognised coercive and controlling behaviour as a criminal offence.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expanded the statutory definition of domestic abuse to include psychological, emotional and economic abuse.
The law now reflects what survivors and researchers have long understood.
Abuse is often about control rather than physical injury.
The legal framework has evolved.
Institutional capability must evolve with it.
Coercive Control Is a Pattern, Not an Incident
One of the greatest challenges within family proceedings is that court processes are traditionally designed to examine events.
Individual allegations.
Individual incidents.
Individual pieces of evidence.
Coercive control does not fit neatly within that structure.
It develops gradually.
It often consists of behaviours that appear insignificant when viewed separately but become profoundly harmful when viewed together.
Financial restriction.
Isolation.
Monitoring.
Humiliation.
Threats.
Manipulation.
Gaslighting.
Legal intimidation.
Taken individually, each behaviour may appear ordinary.
Viewed collectively, they reveal a sustained pattern of domination.
The question for institutions is therefore not:
"Did this individual incident occur?"
The more important question may be:
"What pattern does the evidence reveal?"
When Systems Focus on Incidents, They Risk Missing Harm
Family courts rightly require evidence.
Evidence protects fairness.
Evidence protects due process.
Evidence protects the integrity of judicial decision-making.
However, evidence must also be interpreted within the correct framework.
Where coercive control is assessed solely through isolated events, the wider pattern may remain invisible.
This is one reason why survivors frequently describe feeling that their experiences have been fragmented across multiple hearings, agencies and assessments.
The issue is not necessarily an absence of evidence.
It is that evidence may be examined without sufficient recognition of cumulative harm.
Understanding Trauma Is Essential to Fairness
Trauma does not always present in predictable ways.
Some survivors appear highly emotional.
Others appear detached.
Some remember events with remarkable precision.
Others struggle to recall chronology.
Some continue communicating with an abusive partner.
Others delay reporting abuse altogether.
These responses are well documented within psychological literature.
Without an understanding of trauma, ordinary responses to extraordinary circumstances risk being misunderstood.
Justice requires more than evidence.
It requires the ability to interpret evidence accurately.
The Governance Question
This is why coercive control should never be viewed solely as a legal doctrine.
It is equally a governance issue.
Good governance asks whether institutions possess the capability to achieve the outcomes Parliament intended.
For family justice, those outcomes include:
protecting children;
safeguarding vulnerable adults;
ensuring fair participation;
recognising domestic abuse;
maintaining public confidence.
Where repeated concerns emerge regarding the recognition of coercive control, institutions should ask themselves:
Are professionals receiving appropriate training?
Are safeguarding frameworks sufficiently trauma-informed?
Are patterns of behaviour being assessed effectively?
Are institutions learning from published research and case law?
Are decisions reflecting contemporary understanding of domestic abuse?
These are questions of institutional capability.
Not institutional blame.
Recognition Must Become Capability
Legislation creates duties.
Policy creates expectations.
Training creates awareness.
Governance creates accountability.
But capability is demonstrated only through outcomes.
Recognition of coercive control cannot remain confined to legislation, judicial guidance or professional training materials.
It must become visible in practice.
In safeguarding decisions.
In judicial reasoning.
In risk assessments.
In institutional culture.
In measurable public confidence.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ approaches coercive control as both a safeguarding and governance challenge.
Systems do not fail simply because individual professionals make mistakes.
Systems fail when institutions are unable to recognise patterns, share information effectively, learn from evidence and adapt their practices accordingly.
The future of family justice depends not only upon legal compliance but upon institutional capability.
Capability to recognise.
Capability to safeguard.
Capability to learn.
Capability to improve.
Conclusion
Family courts carry enormous responsibility.
Their decisions shape lives, families and futures.
That responsibility requires more than procedural fairness.
It requires institutions capable of recognising abuse in the forms that Parliament, research and lived experience now understand.
Coercive control is no longer an emerging concept.
It is established within law.
The challenge now is ensuring that recognition becomes consistent institutional practice.
Because justice is not measured only by the decisions courts make.
It is measured by whether the system is capable of recognising the reality that those decisions are intended to address.
The Directive™ exists to ask difficult questions—not to undermine public institutions, but to strengthen them through evidence, governance and continuous improvement. Strong institutions do not fear scrutiny. They learn from it, adapt to it and emerge more capable of delivering the justice they exist to provide.
Copyright Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
Published by SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This article forms part of The Directive™, the flagship thought leadership series published by SAFECHAIN™, examining governance, safeguarding, institutional accountability, family justice, and systems reform.
All content, including the SAFECHAIN™ frameworks, methodologies, governance models, concepts, terminology, analysis, and original written material, is the intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for academic study, professional review, or news reporting with appropriate attribution.
This publication is intended to contribute to informed discussion on governance, safeguarding, family justice, and institutional improvement. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be interpreted as commentary on any individual judge, legal representative, or specific ongoing legal proceedings.