THE PASSPORT OF ERASURE — HOW FAMILY COURTS PROCESS VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

Coercive Control, Procedural Weaponisation, Non-Disclosure, and the Commercialisation of Human Breakdown

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen

Keywords

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, coercive control, Family Court, procedural fairness, Article 6 ECHR, Family Procedure Rules Part 3A, PD3AA, Form E disclosure, financial remedy proceedings, non-disclosure, coercive debt, economic abuse, participation impairment, litigation abuse, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 25, safeguarding failures, institutional fragmentation, trauma-informed justice, equality of arms.

Introduction

The modern understanding of domestic abuse has evolved significantly within English law. Parliament has recognised that abuse is not confined to physical violence, but may instead consist of patterns of coercion, intimidation, surveillance, financial domination, psychological destabilisation, and post-separation control. The statutory recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the subsequent enactment of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represented important legal developments intended to modernise safeguarding frameworks and improve institutional responses to victims.

Yet a serious question remains unresolved:

What occurs when the very institutions designed to protect victims become structurally incapable of recognising the operational realities of coercive control?

This article argues that significant procedural and structural deficiencies continue to exist within Family Court proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse, particularly in financial remedy litigation. These deficiencies frequently manifest through procedural imbalance, disclosure asymmetry, participation impairment, evidential fragmentation, and inadequate trauma-informed safeguarding. The cumulative effect may leave victims economically destabilised, psychologically exhausted, and institutionally erased.

This phenomenon may be described as the “Passport of Erasure”: the progressive procedural stripping of autonomy, credibility, financial stability, and participation capacity through prolonged adversarial litigation following domestic abuse.

The concern raised here is not merely emotional or anecdotal. It is legal, procedural, constitutional, and institutional.

I. Coercive Control as a Continuing Pattern of Harm

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened the legal understanding of abuse beyond physical violence. Section 1 explicitly recognises emotional, psychological, controlling, coercive, and economic abuse as forms of domestic abuse.

Importantly, coercive control is not episodic behaviour. It is a pattern.

The Court of Appeal in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 recognised coercive and controlling behaviour as a pattern of domination capable of producing profound psychological effects upon victims. The judgment acknowledged that coercive control may involve isolation, financial restriction, humiliation, intimidation, surveillance, degradation, and autonomy erosion over extended periods.

The difficulty, however, is that Family Court procedure frequently remains structured around isolated evidential events rather than cumulative behavioural patterns.

This creates a structural incompatibility between:

• the lived reality of coercive control; and

• the procedural mechanisms used to assess it.

Without contextual analysis, courts risk interpreting trauma responses as behavioural inconsistency rather than manifestations of prolonged abuse.

II. Participation Impairment and the Illusion of Equality of Arms

Central to procedural fairness is Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

A fair hearing, however, requires more than physical attendance.

The Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 3A, together with Practice Direction 3AA, recognise that vulnerable persons may require participation adjustments in proceedings. The framework acknowledges that vulnerability may impair a party’s ability to:

• give evidence;

• instruct representatives;

• process information;

• participate meaningfully; or

• engage safely in adversarial litigation.

This reflects a broader common law principle of natural justice: procedural fairness must be real, not merely symbolic.

Yet the operational reality remains deeply inconsistent.

Victims of coercive control frequently enter proceedings already suffering from:

• PTSD;

• hypervigilance;

• dissociation;

• cognitive shutdown;

• severe anxiety;

• depression;

• impaired concentration;

• memory fragmentation; and

• nervous system dysregulation.

These are not abstract concepts. They are medically recognised trauma responses.

Nevertheless, Family Court procedure often continues to assume functional equality between parties regardless of:

• financial disparity;

• legal representation imbalance;

• psychological impairment; or

• trauma exposure.

This creates what may properly be described as an “illusion of equality of arms.”

Formal equality exists procedurally.
Substantive equality frequently does not.

III. Procedural Weaponisation and Litigation Abuse

An increasing body of academic and professional commentary now recognises the phenomenon commonly referred to as “litigation abuse” or “procedural abuse.”

This occurs where legal processes themselves become instruments of coercive control.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has repeatedly acknowledged that post-separation abuse may continue through:

• repeated applications;

• financial pressure;

• strategic delay;

• disclosure obstruction;

• intimidation through correspondence;

• aggressive cross-examination;

• procedural overwhelm; and

• prolonged adversarial engagement.

The concern is not that legal procedure itself is illegitimate. Rather, the concern is that adversarial systems may be manipulated by highly controlling individuals who possess greater financial, psychological, or procedural resources.

In practice, this may result in:

• exhaustion as strategy;

• complexity as intimidation;

• procedural delay as punishment; and

• litigation cost as economic coercion.

For many victims, the courtroom becomes the continuation of coercive control by institutional means.

IV. Form E, Non-Disclosure, and Financial Opacity

Financial remedy proceedings depend fundamentally upon the duty of “full and frank disclosure.”

This duty is foundational to Family Court jurisprudence and has been repeatedly affirmed in authorities including:

• Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424;

• Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60; and

• Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61.

The rationale is straightforward:
A court cannot distribute assets fairly if the financial picture presented is inaccurate.

Yet disclosure disputes remain one of the most persistent and contentious aspects of financial remedy litigation.

Concerns frequently arise regarding:

• undisclosed assets;

• beneficial ownership structures;

• corporate retention mechanisms;

• opaque company arrangements;

• inconsistent lifestyle evidence;

• offshore structures;

• hidden liabilities; and

• selective disclosure practices.

Particular difficulties emerge where closely held companies or alleged alter ego corporate structures are involved.

In such circumstances, one party may possess:

• superior financial knowledge;

• exclusive access to records;

• corporate control; and

• the resources necessary to sustain extensive litigation.

Meanwhile the opposing party may already be psychologically depleted and financially destabilised.

The resulting imbalance is not merely economic.
It becomes evidential.

V. Economic Abuse and Coercive Debt

Economic abuse is now formally recognised within section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

However, institutional understanding of coercive debt remains underdeveloped.

Victims frequently emerge from proceedings facing:

• damaged credit;

• mortgage arrears;

• procedural debt;

• housing instability;

• employment disruption;

• long-term financial exclusion; and

• impaired future borrowing capacity.

This economic erosion may continue long after separation itself.

Importantly, coercive debt is not always generated directly by the abusive relationship alone. It may also arise indirectly through prolonged litigation exposure, legal expenditure, procedural delay, and asset depletion.

The legal system therefore risks becoming economically complicit in post-separation harm where procedural safeguards fail adequately to account for financial coercion dynamics.

VI. Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Gap Between Law and Experience

Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires courts to consider:

• financial needs;

• obligations;

• contributions;

• health;

• earning capacity;

• standard of living;

• disability;

• age;

• duration of marriage; and

• conduct in limited circumstances.

In principle, the statutory framework is broad and flexible.

Yet many survivors experience a profound divergence between:

• statutory intention; and

• procedural reality.

This is especially acute where:

• coercive control existed;

• participation impairment affected litigation capacity;

• disclosure remained disputed;

• financial asymmetry was extreme; or

• safeguarding adjustments were inadequate.

The issue, therefore, is not necessarily the absence of legal frameworks.
It is the operational inconsistency of implementation.

VII. Institutional Fragmentation and the Failure of Interoperability

One of the most significant structural weaknesses within safeguarding systems is institutional fragmentation.

Courts, banks, regulators, healthcare providers, social services, credit agencies, housing bodies, and safeguarding organisations frequently operate in procedural silos.

This fragmentation creates dangerous informational gaps.

No single institution may possess sufficient contextual visibility to identify:

• cumulative coercive patterns;

• economic abuse indicators;

• disclosure inconsistencies;

• participation impairment;

• coercive debt trajectories; or

• interconnected safeguarding risks.

Consequently, victims repeatedly describe experiences of:

• being disbelieved;

• being redirected between agencies;

• being treated as isolated files rather than human beings; and

• falling through systemic gaps.

The issue is therefore not solely legal.
It is infrastructural.

VIII. Natural Justice, Common Law, and the Spirit of the Law

At common law, procedural fairness is not merely aspirational.

The principles of natural justice require:

• impartiality;

• fair hearing;

• procedural integrity; and

• genuine opportunity to participate.

The legitimacy of any justice system ultimately depends not only upon formal legality, but upon public confidence that proceedings operate fairly, proportionately, and transparently.

Where survivors perceive proceedings as:

• inaccessible;

• procedurally overwhelming;

• psychologically unsafe;

• financially destructive; or

• structurally imbalanced,

confidence in institutional justice inevitably deteriorates.

This concern should not be dismissed as emotional dissatisfaction alone.

It is a constitutional concern regarding access to justice itself.

IX. The Need for Trauma-Informed Procedural Reform

The future development of Family Court safeguarding requires deeper integration of:

• trauma-informed procedure;

• participation integrity;

• contextual safeguarding;

• financial transparency mechanisms;

• coercive debt recognition;

• institutional interoperability; and

• vulnerability-responsive litigation management.

The issue is no longer whether coercive control exists.

The issue is whether procedural systems are sufficiently equipped to identify and respond to its operational realities.

Recognition without implementation is insufficient.

Safeguarding without operational consistency is insufficient.

Procedure without substantive fairness risks becoming procedural theatre rather than justice.

Conclusion

The “Passport of Erasure” is not a legal doctrine.
It is a descriptive framework for understanding how procedural imbalance, institutional fragmentation, disclosure asymmetry, and participation impairment may cumulatively affect victims of domestic abuse within Family Court proceedings.

The central concern raised by this article is straightforward:

A justice system cannot meaningfully claim to protect vulnerable persons if its procedures fail adequately to account for the realities of coercive control, trauma, financial asymmetry, and post-separation abuse.

The challenge facing modern Family Court systems is therefore not merely one of legal reform, but of institutional design.

Until procedural systems evolve beyond fragmented, adversarial, and psychologically neutral assumptions, many survivors will continue experiencing litigation not as protection, but as continuation.

And where procedure becomes indistinguishable from erosion, the legitimacy of justice itself is called into question.

Linkedin Article

🎧 Listen to the Podcast
Silent Screams, Loud Strength Podcast

▶️ Watch on YouTube
YouTube Channel

🌐 Read More at SAFECHAIN™ / The Directive
SAFECHAIN™ Website

📖 Pre-Order Unmasking Justice
Pre-Order Unmasking Justice

🎭 UNMASKING JUSTICE — Masquerade Gala
📍 Lainston House Hotel, Hampshire
📅 30 October 2026
🎟️ Reserve Tickets:
Masquerade Gala Tickets

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.