Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control and Family Justice Around the World
Different Laws. Different Courts. The Same Institutional Challenge.
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Abstract
Domestic abuse is one of the most significant safeguarding and human rights challenges facing modern justice systems. While legal frameworks have evolved considerably over the past two decades, family courts around the world continue to face remarkably similar criticisms. Survivors report that coercive control is misunderstood, economic abuse remains under-recognised, post-separation abuse continues through litigation, and children exposed to domestic abuse are not always adequately protected.
Although family justice systems differ across jurisdictions, the same structural questions repeatedly emerge. How should courts distinguish coercive control from ordinary relationship conflict? How should children's welfare be assessed where abuse consists of patterns of domination rather than isolated incidents? How should institutions coordinate information across agencies? And how can legal systems ensure that procedural fairness translates into substantive justice?
This article examines developments across multiple jurisdictions—including the United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, countries across Asia and Africa, and the Gulf region—to demonstrate that these are not isolated national problems. They represent a broader governance challenge confronting family justice worldwide.
The article argues that the next generation of reform must move beyond legislative recognition towards institutional capability. Laws increasingly recognise domestic abuse. The challenge now lies in ensuring that institutions consistently identify, assess and respond to it.
Introduction
Family justice systems have never attracted greater public scrutiny.
Across every continent, governments have introduced reforms intended to strengthen safeguarding, improve child protection, recognise coercive control and modernise family law. Legislatures have enacted new domestic abuse legislation, specialist courts have been established, judicial guidance has expanded, and multidisciplinary approaches have become increasingly common.
These developments reflect a profound shift in legal understanding.
Domestic abuse is no longer viewed solely through the lens of physical violence. Courts increasingly acknowledge that abuse may involve psychological manipulation, coercive control, financial abuse, intimidation, surveillance, isolation, threats, technological monitoring and post-separation litigation.
Yet despite these legislative advances, similar concerns continue to arise across jurisdictions.
Survivors frequently report that coercive control remains difficult to prove. Professionals describe inconsistent safeguarding responses. Researchers identify fragmented institutional processes. Policymakers continue to debate how family justice should balance parental rights with child protection.
Different countries have adopted different legal frameworks.
Remarkably, however, they continue to encounter many of the same governance challenges.
A Global Pattern
Comparative analysis demonstrates striking similarities across family justice systems.
Regardless of whether proceedings occur in London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland, São Paulo, Dubai, Johannesburg or New York, recurring concerns include:
inconsistent recognition of coercive control;
misunderstanding trauma responses;
difficulties distinguishing abuse from high-conflict separation;
fragmented information between agencies;
repeated litigation following separation;
economic abuse affecting financial outcomes;
inadequate recognition of cumulative behavioural patterns;
barriers to meaningful participation for vulnerable parties;
inconsistent safeguarding of children exposed to abuse.
These concerns emerge despite substantial differences in constitutional arrangements, legal traditions, procedural rules and judicial structures.
The implication is significant.
The principal challenge may no longer be legislative.
It may be institutional.
The Evolution of Domestic Abuse Recognition
Over recent decades, domestic abuse legislation has expanded considerably.
Modern legal frameworks increasingly recognise that abuse may include:
coercive and controlling behaviour;
psychological abuse;
emotional abuse;
economic abuse;
technological abuse;
stalking and harassment;
intimidation;
threats;
isolation;
post-separation abuse.
This broader understanding reflects extensive interdisciplinary research demonstrating that domestic abuse frequently consists of sustained behavioural patterns rather than isolated incidents of physical violence.
Legislation has evolved accordingly.
Professional practice has not always evolved at the same pace.
The Recognition Problem
One of the most consistent findings emerging internationally concerns recognition.
Information often exists.
Evidence frequently exists.
Concerns are documented.
Yet safeguarding action does not always follow.
Reports from multiple jurisdictions suggest that domestic abuse may be acknowledged within case documentation without fundamentally altering judicial reasoning or procedural management.
Recognition therefore becomes inconsistent.
Not because information is absent.
But because institutions struggle to translate information into coordinated action.
This distinction is crucial.
The challenge is increasingly one of implementation rather than awareness.
Children and the Invisible Harm of Coercive Control
Modern safeguarding increasingly recognises that children need not be physically assaulted to experience harm.
Living within environments characterised by fear, intimidation, domination and psychological instability may affect children's:
emotional development;
educational attainment;
physical health;
attachment relationships;
behavioural regulation;
long-term wellbeing.
Family justice therefore requires courts to assess the child's entire environment rather than merely identifying discrete incidents of abuse.
This represents an important conceptual shift.
Protection must move beyond incident-based assessment towards understanding cumulative patterns of harm.
Economic Abuse as a Family Justice Issue
Economic abuse remains comparatively under-developed within many family justice systems.
Yet financial control frequently influences every stage of litigation.
Examples may include:
concealment of assets;
manipulation of disclosure;
strategic indebtedness;
housing insecurity;
control of income;
coercive debt;
litigation costs;
prolonged financial dependency;
post-separation economic pressure.
These issues extend beyond relationship dynamics.
They directly affect procedural fairness and substantive financial outcomes.
Family justice therefore cannot treat economic abuse as peripheral.
It forms part of the architecture of coercive control.
Post-Separation Abuse
Ending a relationship does not necessarily end abuse.
International research increasingly identifies post-separation abuse as one of the most significant challenges confronting family justice.
This may involve:
repeated court applications;
tactical delay;
procedural exhaustion;
manipulation of parenting arrangements;
financial pressure;
harassment;
disclosure disputes;
reputational attacks;
strategic allegations.
Family courts therefore become both the mechanism for resolving disputes and, potentially, the environment through which abusive behaviour continues.
Recognition of litigation abuse remains an important area for future development.
Participation and Procedural Fairness
Family justice relies heavily upon participation.
Yet meaningful participation cannot be assumed.
Trauma, coercive control, financial inequality, cognitive overload, disability, language barriers and procedural complexity may all affect an individual's ability to engage effectively with legal proceedings.
Formal presence does not necessarily equal meaningful participation.
Institutions must therefore distinguish procedural attendance from procedural capability.
This distinction lies at the heart of procedural fairness.
The Governance Challenge
Comparative analysis reveals a common institutional problem.
Responsibility for safeguarding is frequently distributed across multiple organisations.
These may include:
family courts;
criminal courts;
police;
child protection agencies;
healthcare providers;
schools;
housing authorities;
financial institutions;
community organisations;
domestic abuse services.
Each may possess important information.
None necessarily possesses the complete picture.
Fragmentation therefore creates governance risk.
Evidence becomes dispersed.
Recognition becomes inconsistent.
Accountability becomes diluted.
The consequence is not necessarily institutional indifference.
Rather, it is institutional fragmentation.
Different Jurisdictions, Shared Lessons
The SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series has examined family justice across numerous jurisdictions.
Although legal frameworks differ considerably, common lessons emerge.
The United States demonstrates the challenges of balancing parental rights with safeguarding where intimate partner violence is alleged.
Canada illustrates how legislative recognition of family violence requires consistent implementation across provinces and institutions.
Brazil highlights the significance of comprehensive domestic violence legislation while demonstrating that implementation remains critical.
Australia increasingly recognises coercive control yet continues to confront practical implementation challenges.
New Zealand emphasises integrated responses but similarly illustrates the gap between statutory recognition and institutional consistency.
Asian jurisdictions reveal how cultural diversity, legal pluralism and access to justice influence family justice outcomes.
African jurisdictions demonstrate the interaction between statutory law, customary systems, economic vulnerability and safeguarding.
The Gulf region illustrates how rapidly modernising legal systems balance legal reform, cultural context and child protection.
Different systems.
Shared governance questions.
Beyond Awareness
Public awareness of domestic abuse has increased dramatically.
Professional understanding has improved.
Legislation has expanded.
Training has become more widespread.
Yet awareness alone does not protect children.
Awareness alone does not prevent coercive control.
Awareness alone does not ensure procedural fairness.
Institutions require capability.
Capability includes:
behavioural recognition;
disclosure verification;
integrated safeguarding;
trauma-informed participation;
cross-agency coordination;
accountability;
continuous governance oversight.
These capabilities determine whether legal rights become practical protections.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ approaches family justice through institutional capability rather than jurisdiction-specific reform.
Its governance methodologies focus upon strengthening the implementation of existing legal duties rather than replacing them.
Relevant frameworks include:
Participation Integrity™;
Recognition Intelligence™;
Disclosure Integrity™;
Behavioural Pattern Analysis™;
Child Safety Integrity™;
Economic Abuse Assessment™;
Litigation Abuse Assessment™;
Safeguarding Coordination Framework™;
Governance Intelligence™;
Institutional Accountability Mapping™.
Collectively, these methodologies seek to bridge the implementation gap between legislative intention and institutional practice.
The Future of Family Justice
Future reform is unlikely to depend solely upon additional legislation.
Most developed jurisdictions already possess substantial legal frameworks recognising domestic abuse.
The next phase concerns institutional performance.
Can systems consistently identify coercive control?
Can they recognise behavioural patterns rather than isolated incidents?
Can they integrate fragmented information?
Can they protect vulnerable participants?
Can they assess economic abuse alongside financial fairness?
Can they coordinate safeguarding across institutional boundaries?
Can they measure implementation rather than merely policy?
These questions define the future of family justice.
Conclusion
Family justice systems around the world are moving towards a common understanding of domestic abuse.
Recognition of coercive control continues to expand.
Understanding of economic abuse is improving.
Protection of children exposed to domestic abuse is receiving greater attention.
Yet implementation remains inconsistent.
The challenge facing modern family justice is therefore no longer simply one of legal reform.
It is one of institutional capability.
Different countries may continue to adopt different legal solutions.
But they are increasingly attempting to solve the same governance problem:
How do institutions consistently recognise vulnerability, protect children, support meaningful participation and convert legal rights into practical safeguarding?
Until that question is answered, the gap between law and lived experience will remain.
The future of family justice will depend not simply upon better legislation, but upon stronger governance.
LinkedIn article Read Here
Copyright
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This publication forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™ and the PRESS REPOSITORY™.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, distributed, incorporated into governance frameworks, educational programmes, artificial intelligence systems, institutional policies, software, commercial products, or derivative works without prior written permission, except as permitted by copyright law for criticism, review, or academic research.
SAFECHAIN™, Participation Integrity™, Recognition Intelligence™, Disclosure Integrity™, Behavioural Pattern Analysis™, Child Safety Integrity™, Economic Abuse Assessment™, Litigation Abuse Assessment™, Safeguarding Coordination Framework™, Governance Intelligence™, and Institutional Accountability Mapping™ are the intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
Version 1.0