Amy left her Spanish husband, Stefan, following years of controlling behaviour which escalated to physical violence. She fled to her sister’s house in the UK to break free from the invisible power cord holding her and Stefan together and was determined to protect their daughter from harm. Amy found much-needed breathing space and started to plan where and how, as a separated family, they would heal and move forward.

Amy proposed reasonable solutions to Stefan; supervised visitation with family members whilst acquiring help from professionals to address his controlling, violent behaviour. Stefan refused. Whenever they came close to an agreement, he shifted the goalposts. Stefan soon went from discussion to threat; Amy would have to accept his proposal of unsupervised child contact in Spain or face the consequences. Amy knew mediation attempts would be futile; Stefan would never agree to what professionals would think fair and appropriate, only to what he felt rightful of.

Amy was worried and couldn’t accept his high-risk proposal; her instincts told her that, given the opportunity, Stefan would keep their daughter, Ella, in Spain and attempt to sever her bond with Amy. He knew Amy’s deepest fears and used them to hurt her.

When Amy refused to submit to Stefan’s demands and insisted he needed help he responded with humiliated fury. He sent intimate images of Amy to her Spanish workplace from which she had taken leave. Next, he relished destroying Amy’s belongings, all still in Spain. Then Stefan sent abusive text messages to Amy wishing her dead and expressing his intent to annihilate her. During weeks of rage he didn’t ask about their daughter, Ella, or consider how his actions would affect Amy’s parenting of her. Stefan was on a mission; punishing Amy was all that mattered. Stefan’s acts of punishment tortured Amy and her family; Amy was mortified, justifiably incensed at Stefan for terrorising her and terrified of the unknown, Stefan’s next move.

Stefan then moved from rage to rebuilding his protective facade and assumed the role of victim. He set up a website claiming Amy had kidnapped their daughter and that he was a wronged father desperately missing his baby. The police appeared at Amy’s sister’s house after Stefan worriedly reported that Amy was emotionally unstable and likely to harm Ella. Amy was on an emotional rollercoaster, and the man with the finger on the stop button was Stefan. The following week, officers of the court appeared with a summons; Stefan alleged Amy had abducted Ella from Spain and demanded the child’s return through the family courts. In addition, he alleged Amy was attempting to sabotage his relationship with Ella and alienate him from her. It became clear, Stefan didn’t want contact; he wanted power, control, and sympathy. He felt entitled to it and could not acknowledge, accept or show remorse for his behaviour.

The family court failed to see the truth, initially. Stefan’s coercive and controlling behaviours were insidious; he hired a team of lawyers who used stealth to attack Amy in and out of court at Stefan’s behest. The court looked at incidents in isolation, not the bigger picture; they failed to see the impact on the child, Ella, resulting from the pattern of behaviours directed towards Amy. Stefan’s lawyers helped him excuse his behaviour, soften and diminish incidents, and gain more sympathy. Amy could see and feel the near and present danger but struggled to explain and present her case; she couldn’t afford lawyers and found it difficult to contain her frustration as she desperately tried to correct the narrative.

Stefan had Amy exactly where he wanted her; frightened, anxious, and desperate; often interpreted by the court as bitterness and hostility. Amy’s natural protective instincts, reactions to the abuse and reaction to the court's response was reframed by her ex and his lawyers and used against her. Stefan and his team had effectively flipped the script and portrayed Amy as an unwell, incapable, and abusive parent. She felt utterly helpless. With Stefan’s ability to evade accountability, Amy felt unable to protect their child from harm.

When perpetrators control the narrative, and the family courts disbelieve, misunderstand or deny domestic abuse, it can result in poor decisions and ineffective contact orders. Systems are currently allowing abusers to act with impunity; they fail victim-survivors and empower perpetrators. The system exposes vulnerable parents and children to further mental and physical violence. The belligerent campaigns of perpetrators of Coercive Control are driven by a need to dominate their partner or ex-partner and render them subordinate. The impact on children is palpable.

A repugnant market has formed around the family courts; false allegations of parental alienation and child abduction are widespread, and the same lawyers appear in case after case, ready to aid perpetrators of Coercive Control to annihilate the mothers of their children. Society has been subtly coerced to believe the perpetrators of false allegations are primarily women and children raising abuse allegations. As the saying goes, it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. Coercive Control is complex; some perpetrators have a captivating aura. It’s hard to believe these individuals are capable of such venom and capable of harming and killing their children, that is, until one sees, understands and experiences Coercive Control.

Bespoke offences of Coercive Control in criminal law are helping to lift the shroud from domestic abuse exposing the true nature and cause, and perpetrator tactics. A global awakening is underway; as perpetrators’ courtroom strategies and poor parenting choices come under the spotlight, a seismic shift from victim-blaming to accountability will hopefully follow.