When Financial Remedy Proceedings Perpetuate the Harm They Were Intended to Resolve
THE ECONOMIC ABUSE PARADOX™
When Financial Remedy Proceedings Perpetuate the Harm They Were Intended to Resolve
SAFECHAIN™ Intelligence Hub
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
The Question Nobody Wants to Ask
Family courts are intended to resolve financial disputes arising from the breakdown of relationships.
But what happens when the process itself becomes a vehicle through which economic abuse continues?
This question sits at the centre of an increasingly uncomfortable reality emerging from domestic abuse research.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner's Everyday Business review highlighted growing concerns regarding how domestic abuse is addressed within financial remedy proceedings.
The report references important work undertaken by Surviving Economic Abuse and the Nuffield Foundation's Fair Shares Project, both of which point towards the same conclusion:
Economic abuse is not simply a relationship issue.
It is a justice issue.
And in some cases, the justice system may be reinforcing rather than repairing the harm.
The Invisible Form of Abuse
Economic abuse remains one of the least understood forms of domestic abuse.
Unlike physical violence, economic abuse often leaves no visible injury.
Instead, it manifests through:
financial dependency;
restricted access to money;
coercive debt;
hidden assets;
manipulated liabilities;
credit damage;
housing insecurity;
control of income;
strategic non-disclosure.
Its effects often continue long after separation.
For many survivors, leaving the relationship marks the beginning—not the end—of financial vulnerability.
The Fair Shares Findings
The Nuffield Foundation's Fair Shares research examined how separating couples negotiate financial arrangements.
Its findings are significant.
The research found that survivors whose relationships ended due to domestic abuse frequently experienced economic abuse as part of that wider pattern of harm.
The majority were caring for dependent children.
Female survivors were also found to be financially worse off at the conclusion of proceedings than other divorcing women.
This finding raises a difficult question.
If financial remedy proceedings exist to achieve fairness, why do survivors of abuse frequently emerge in a weaker financial position?
The Resolution Survey
The concerns do not stop there.
Resolution's survey of more than 500 financial remedy practitioners found that approximately 80% believed domestic abuse, particularly economic abuse, is not sufficiently taken into account within financial remedy proceedings.
The practitioners identified recurring concerns:
inadequate financial support;
inappropriate referrals to non-court dispute resolution;
continuing financial abuse through litigation;
non-disclosure of assets;
breaches of court orders;
outcomes that perpetuate vulnerability.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the issue is not isolated.
It may be structural.
The Participation Gap™
SAFECHAIN™ describes one aspect of this problem through The Participation Gap™.
Financial remedy proceedings assume participants can engage on relatively equal footing.
Yet survivors of economic abuse often enter proceedings with:
fewer financial resources;
reduced access to information;
greater psychological burden;
increased caring responsibilities;
limited ability to fund representation;
ongoing trauma.
Participation therefore becomes unequal before proceedings have even begun.
The system records two parties.
The reality may be two vastly different capacities to participate.
The wider the gap, the greater the risk that formal equality masks practical inequality.
The Shadow Ledger™
Economic abuse rarely disappears when proceedings begin.
It often evolves.
SAFECHAIN™ refers to this as The Shadow Ledger™.
The visible financial record presented to the court may not accurately reflect the true economic reality of the relationship.
Assets may be concealed.
Income may be understated.
Liabilities may be shifted.
Control may continue through procedural means rather than direct financial control.
The court sees documentation.
The survivor experiences the consequences.
The difference between those two realities can determine the outcome of a case.
The Passport of Erasure™
Survivors often find themselves repeatedly explaining the same history to multiple professionals.
Solicitors.
Barristers.
Judges.
Banks.
Housing providers.
Mortgage lenders.
Support organisations.
Each institution encounters only part of the story.
Each institution creates a separate file.
The context becomes fragmented.
The abuse becomes diluted.
The financial harm becomes disconnected from its origins.
This is what SAFECHAIN™ describes as The Passport of Erasure™.
The survivor carries the history.
The system repeatedly loses it.
Institutional Fragmentation™
The Everyday Business findings reveal a broader governance problem.
Financial remedy proceedings do not operate in isolation.
They affect:
housing;
banking;
mortgages;
credit;
benefits;
employment;
mental health;
child welfare.
Yet institutions frequently operate independently.
A bank sees arrears.
A housing provider sees rent debt.
A court sees litigation.
A healthcare provider sees trauma.
Each sees a symptom.
Few see the system.
The result is institutional fragmentation.
The abuse becomes divided across organisations.
The consequences remain concentrated upon the survivor.
The SAFECHAIN™ Index
This is why the SAFECHAIN™ Index places such emphasis on:
Institutional Coordination™;
Documentation Continuity™;
Participation Integrity™;
Trauma-Informed Practice™;
Accountability Architecture™.
The central question is simple:
Can institutions recognise economic abuse as a safeguarding issue rather than merely a financial issue?
Until they can, survivors will continue to move between systems that see isolated problems rather than interconnected harm.
The Economic Abuse Paradox™
The emerging evidence presents a paradox.
Financial remedy proceedings are intended to create financial fairness.
Yet growing evidence suggests survivors of economic abuse often leave those proceedings in a position of continuing vulnerability.
The system designed to remedy harm may, in some cases, be reproducing it.
That should concern every professional involved in family justice.
Because fairness cannot be measured solely by procedural completion.
Fairness must also be measured by outcome.
The SAFECHAIN™ Conclusion
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner's Everyday Business findings represent more than a safeguarding challenge.
They represent a challenge to how family justice understands financial harm.
Economic abuse is not a secondary issue.
It is a central justice issue.
Until systems recognise coercive debt, strategic non-disclosure, financial manipulation, participation impairment, and institutional fragmentation as interconnected phenomena, survivors will continue to carry the cost of abuse long after proceedings have ended.
The question is no longer whether economic abuse exists.
The evidence is overwhelming.
The question is whether our institutions are capable of recognising it before they unintentionally perpetuate it.
SAFECHAIN™ Intelligence Hub
Building the future of safeguarding through Participation Integrity™, Documentation Continuity™, Institutional Coordination™, and Accountability Architecture™.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).
Version 1.0