top of page
Search

When Love Becomes Control

  • Writer: Jennifer Hogan Brown
    Jennifer Hogan Brown
  • Jul 10
  • 13 min read

Understanding and Recognising Coercive Control in Relationships




"Coercive control is liberty crime". - Dr Evan Stark

Our understanding of domestic abuse has changed significantly over the past two decades. Once viewed primarily through the lens of physical violence, it is now recognised that abuse can also take the form of a sustained pattern of behaviour that gradually deprives another person of their confidence, independence and freedom. Known as coercive control, this form of abuse is recognised in law and may have profound consequences for individuals, families and, in some cases, future legal proceedings.



A changing understanding of domestic abuse

For many years, public understanding of domestic abuse was shaped largely by visible acts of violence. Assaults, threats of physical harm and criminal prosecutions naturally attracted attention, whilst relationships in which no physical injuries were apparent were often regarded simply as unhappy, troubled or dysfunctional. It is now recognised that this view captured only part of a much broader picture.


Over the past two decades, research from psychologists, sociologists, legal scholars and organisations supporting victims of domestic abuse has fundamentally changed the way abusive relationships are understood. Their work has demonstrated that some of the most damaging relationships are characterised not by repeated acts of physical violence, but by an ongoing pattern of domination through which one person progressively acquires power over another. The harm lies not simply in individual incidents, but in the cumulative effect of countless small restrictions that gradually erode confidence, independence and personal freedom.


Few people have influenced this change in thinking more than the American sociologist Dr Evan Stark. His research challenged the long-held assumption that domestic abuse should be understood principally as a series of violent episodes. Instead, he argued that many abusive relationships are better understood as systems of control, within which one person's liberty is progressively restricted through a combination of psychological, emotional, financial and social pressures. His description of coercive control as a "liberty crime" remains one of the most influential explanations of the concept and continues to shape legal thinking in many jurisdictions.


This broader understanding has influenced both public policy and the law in England and Wales. Increasingly, police officers, family courts and criminal courts are encouraged to examine relationships in their entirety rather than focusing solely upon isolated incidents. The central question is no longer simply whether violence occurred, but whether a sustained pattern of behaviour developed that significantly restricted another person's autonomy and wellbeing.


What is coercive control?

The expression "coercive control " is now widely recognised, yet it remains one of the least understood forms of domestic abuse. It does not describe ordinary disagreements, personality differences or the inevitable tensions that arise within close relationships. Healthy relationships involve compromise, negotiation and, from time to time, conflict. Coercive control is something fundamentally different.


At its heart, coercive control is concerned with power. It describes a continuing pattern of behaviour through which one person seeks to dominate another by regulating aspects of everyday life that most people would ordinarily regard as matters of personal choice. Over time, decisions that should belong to the individual increasingly become subject to another person's approval, scrutiny or influence.


The behaviours involved vary considerably from one relationship to another. They may include controlling finances, restricting contact with friends or family, monitoring communications, limiting access to employment or education, criticising or humiliating someone until their confidence diminishes, or creating an atmosphere in which disagreement carries emotional or practical consequences. Whilst any one of these behaviours might appear relatively insignificant when viewed in isolation, their cumulative effect can fundamentally alter the balance of a relationship.


This distinction between individual incidents and sustained patterns lies at the heart of modern thinking about domestic abuse.

Coercive control is not defined by the seriousness of one particular event, but by the gradual erosion of another person's autonomy over time.

The legal framework

The evolution in public understanding has been reflected in legislation.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales that extends well beyond physical violence. The Act recognises that abusive behaviour may be physical or sexual, violent or threatening, controlling or coercive, economic, or psychological and emotional in nature. In doing so, Parliament acknowledged that abuse can be experienced in many different ways and that visible injury is not the only measure of harm.



Alongside this broader definition, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour within an intimate or family relationship. The offence applies where a person repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive behaviour that has a serious effect on another person and where they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that this would be the case.



The Crown Prosecution Service advises prosecutors to consider the overall context of the relationship rather than treating incidents in isolation. Its guidance recognises that behaviour which may appear relatively insignificant when viewed individually can, when considered collectively, demonstrate a sustained pattern of coercion and control.


Taken together, these developments represent an important shift in legal thinking. The question is no longer confined to whether physical violence occurred, but whether one person's behaviour has progressively deprived another of their freedom, independence and ability to live their life without fear or undue control.


Recognising the signs

One of the defining characteristics of coercive control is that it rarely begins with overt domination. Relationships characterised by controlling behaviour often develop gradually, with seemingly minor restrictions becoming progressively more intrusive over months or years. Because each individual change may appear relatively insignificant, the broader pattern can remain difficult to recognise until considerable control has already been established.


This gradual progression helps to explain why many intelligent, capable and resilient people struggle to recognise coercive control whilst they are living through it. Few relationships begin with obvious abuse. More commonly, boundaries shift slowly. Behaviour that once felt unusual becomes familiar; expectations become obligations; and decisions that were once made independently increasingly require explanation or permission. Adaptation occurs almost imperceptibly, making it difficult to identify the point at which a caring relationship has become a controlling one.


The forms that coercive control may take are remarkably varied, but they often share a common purpose: limiting another person's independence whilst increasing their dependence upon the individual exercising control.


Financial decisions, for example, may gradually cease to be shared. Access to bank accounts becomes restricted, spending requires explanation and financial dependence develops almost imperceptibly. Social relationships may narrow as contact with friends and family is discouraged or criticised. Communications may become increasingly monitored through requests for passwords, location sharing or constant updates about everyday movements, all of which may initially be presented as expressions of concern rather than mechanisms of surveillance.


Confidence is frequently affected in equally subtle ways. Persistent criticism, ridicule or repeated questioning of another person's judgement can gradually undermine self-esteem until decisions that were once made with confidence become accompanied by uncertainty and self-doubt. Many individuals later describe adapting to these changes rather than consciously accepting them, a distinction that is both psychologically understandable and legally significant.


It is this cumulative pattern, rather than the seriousness of any individual incident, that distinguishes coercive control from the ordinary challenges experienced within most relationships.


Would other people recognise it?

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of coercive control is that it is often remarkably difficult for others to identify. Friends may describe the controlling partner as charming and attentive. Colleagues may notice only that someone has become quieter or less confident. Family members may attribute increasing isolation to the natural pressures of work or family life. To those outside the relationship, nothing may appear obviously wrong.

Indeed, maintaining an appearance of normality can itself become part of the pattern. Many people experiencing coercive control later reflect that, had someone visited their home, they would probably have seen little cause for concern. The significance lies not in a single dramatic incident, but in the accumulation of behaviours that progressively reshape the relationship and diminish one person's freedom.


For that reason, professionals are increasingly encouraged to consider relationships as a whole rather than searching for one decisive event. Understanding coercive control requires looking beyond individual incidents to recognise the broader pattern they create.


Looking beyond the individual incident

One of the most important developments in both psychology and law has been the recognition that coercive control is seldom demonstrated by one dramatic event. Rather, it emerges through the accumulation of many apparently ordinary incidents which, when viewed together, reveal a consistent pattern of domination and restriction.


This has important implications not only for recognising coercive control, but also for demonstrating it. People frequently believe that, because there has been no physical assault or because each individual incident appears insignificant, there can be no meaningful evidence of abuse. In reality, the opposite is often true. Contemporary investigations and court proceedings increasingly seek to understand the relationship as a whole, examining numerous small pieces of evidence that, collectively, may provide a compelling picture of sustained coercion.


In the next part of this article, we consider how coercive control may be demonstrated in practice, the forms of evidence that can assist, and why apparently ordinary documents and communications can sometimes become highly significant when viewed within the broader context of a relationship.


Demonstrating coercive control

One of the most common misconceptions about coercive control is that it cannot be proved because there are no visible injuries or single dramatic incidents. Many people assume that, unless there has been physical violence, any complaint will amount to one person's word against another's. In reality, investigations into coercive control rarely depend upon one decisive piece of evidence. Instead, they seek to establish whether the relationship, viewed as a whole, reveals a sustained pattern of behaviour consistent with coercion and control.


This approach reflects the very nature of coercive control itself. Because the behaviour usually develops gradually, the evidence is often similarly cumulative. A text message asking where someone is may appear entirely unremarkable. So too might a bank statement showing restricted spending, an email cancelling arrangements with friends or a diary entry describing an argument. Individually, such documents may appear insignificant. When considered together over many months or even years, however, they can begin to illustrate a consistent pattern that would not otherwise be apparent.


The Crown Prosecution Service advises investigators to examine the context of the relationship and the cumulative effect of behaviour rather than treating each incident in isolation.


No two cases are identical and there is no prescribed checklist of evidence. Depending upon the circumstances, evidence may include:

  • text messages, emails or social media communications;

  • records demonstrating repeated monitoring of another person's movements or communications;

  • bank statements showing financial restriction or economic dependence;

  • contemporaneous diary entries or notes recording incidents as they occurred;

  • medical or counselling records where relevant;

  • statements from family members, neighbours, friends or colleagues who observed changes over time;

  • school records demonstrating the impact upon children;

  • photographs of damaged property or injuries where applicable;

  • police attendance records, even where no prosecution followed.


    (* see Crown Prosecution Service guidance for further types of relevant evidence )


Often, it is not the existence of any single document that is significant, but the consistency with which numerous pieces of evidence support the same underlying pattern.


It is also worth remembering that people experiencing coercive control frequently minimise or normalise what is happening whilst it is occurring. They may not preserve evidence because they do not yet recognise the behaviour as abusive. This should not be taken as evidence that coercive control has not occurred. Rather, it reflects one of the reasons why this form of abuse can remain hidden for so long.


A case study

Patterns of coercive control are often easier to recognise when viewed through the course of a relationship rather than as a list of behaviours. The following fictional case study illustrates how seemingly ordinary events can, over time, reveal something much more significant.


Sarah and Daniel had been married for twelve years. Friends regarded them as a successful couple. Daniel was personable, professionally successful and attentive in public. There had never been any physical violence and Sarah did not consider herself a victim of domestic abuse.


Over time, however, subtle changes began to emerge. Daniel increasingly questioned Sarah's friendships, suggesting that certain friends were a negative influence. Family gatherings became less frequent because they were said to be inconvenient or unnecessary. Financial decisions gradually ceased to be shared. Sarah's salary continued to be paid into a joint account, yet she found herself explaining everyday purchases and feeling guilty about spending money without discussion.


Daniel also insisted that couples should have "complete openness" and persuaded Sarah that sharing passwords demonstrated trust. Before long, he regularly checked her telephone, questioned routine conversations with colleagues and became irritated if she did not respond immediately to messages. None of these events appeared especially significant in isolation. Sarah often reassured herself that every relationship involved compromise.


As the years passed, Sarah noticed that she no longer made even minor decisions without considering Daniel's likely reaction. She avoided inviting friends to the house, stopped pursuing interests she had previously enjoyed and gradually lost confidence in her own judgement. When she eventually sought legal advice following the breakdown of the relationship, she apologised for "having no evidence" because Daniel had never struck her.

During discussions with her solicitor, a very different picture emerged. Hundreds of text messages demonstrated persistent monitoring. Bank records showed prolonged financial restriction. Emails revealed repeated cancellation of family visits. Her GP records documented increasing anxiety over several years. Her sister described how Sarah had become progressively isolated and reluctant to express opinions in Daniel's presence.


None of these pieces of evidence proved coercive control by themselves. Together, however, they illustrated a sustained pattern through which Sarah's independence had gradually been diminished. What she had experienced was not simply a series of unrelated disagreements, but a relationship whose balance of power had altered profoundly over time.


Why leaving is rarely straightforward

One of the questions most frequently asked by those outside an abusive relationship is why someone did not simply leave. Whilst usually well intentioned, the question risks overlooking the very nature of coercive control.


People rarely remain because they are unaware that something feels wrong. More commonly, they remain because leaving has become increasingly difficult.


Years of persistent criticism may erode confidence until independent decision-making feels overwhelming. Financial dependence may make separation appear impossible. Children, housing, cultural expectations, concern for extended family or hope that the relationship will improve may all influence decisions. Many individuals also describe feeling responsible for the behaviour of the other person, believing that if only they communicated differently or avoided particular topics, the relationship would return to how it once was.


The gradual nature of coercive control is particularly significant. Relationships characterised by such behaviour seldom change overnight. Instead, boundaries shift incrementally and each new restriction becomes the starting point for the next. Adaptation is a normal human response to changing circumstances. It should not be mistaken for consent.


Coercive control in later life

Although public discussion often focuses upon younger couples, coercive control can occur at any stage of life. Indeed, later life may create circumstances in which controlling behaviour becomes easier to conceal or more difficult to challenge.


An older person may become increasingly dependent upon a spouse or family member because of declining mobility, illness or reduced confidence. Financial arrangements that were once shared may become concentrated in the hands of one individual. Access to transport, communication or medical appointments may also become controlled, making it progressively more difficult for the older person to maintain independence.


Examples may include preventing contact with friends or adult children, controlling pension income, discouraging independent legal advice, monitoring telephone conversations or insisting upon accompanying someone to every professional appointment. Such behaviour may be explained as concern or protection, yet in some situations it can amount to a sustained pattern of control that significantly restricts another person's autonomy.


Particular care may also be required where there are concerns surrounding wills, inheritance or Lasting Powers of Attorney. Pressure to change testamentary arrangements, attempts to isolate an individual from those who might provide independent advice, or efforts to influence important legal decisions may all warrant careful consideration. Every family is different, and these circumstances do not necessarily indicate coercive control. Nevertheless, they illustrate how domestic abuse can intersect with other areas of legal practice in ways that are not always immediately recognised.


The charity Hourglass, which specialises in supporting older people experiencing abuse, has highlighted that abuse in later life frequently includes psychological, financial and coercive behaviours as well as physical harm.


What coercive control is not

It is equally important to recognise what coercive control is not. Not every unhappy relationship, disagreement or difficult personality falls within the legal definition of domestic abuse. Couples argue. Financial pressures create tension. Family members disagree about major decisions. These experiences, whilst distressing, do not of themselves amount to coercive control.


The distinguishing feature is the existence of a sustained pattern through which one person's freedom and independence are progressively restricted in order to maintain power or dominance within the relationship. Context is therefore critical. Behaviour that may appear relatively ordinary in one relationship may have a very different significance when viewed alongside months or years of similar conduct.


For this reason, concerns about coercive control are best considered by looking at the relationship as a whole rather than focusing exclusively upon individual incidents.


Discussing your situation

Every relationship is unique, and there is rarely a clear dividing line between ordinary relationship difficulties and behaviour that may have legal significance. Where concerns exist, obtaining advice does not commit anyone to taking immediate legal action. Often, the greatest value lies in gaining an objective understanding of the situation, the available options and the protections that the law may provide.


At Eddison Cogan Lawyers, we appreciate that discussions about coercive control are often deeply personal. They are approached with discretion, sensitivity and an understanding that every client's circumstances are different. Our role is not simply to explain the law, but to help individuals make informed decisions with clarity and confidence.



About the author

Jennifer Hogan-Brown is the Client Support Manager at Eddison Cogan Lawyers. Drawing upon a professional background in nursing and counselling psychology, Jennifer writes about the intersection between human behaviour, psychology and the law, helping to explain complex legal issues in a way that is accessible, thoughtful and grounded in current legal understanding.



This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The law relating to domestic abuse and coercive control may change, and its application will always depend upon the facts of an individual case. If you require advice about your own circumstances, you should seek advice from a qualified solicitor.



Further information & Resources


 Domestic abuse and coercive control are complex issues, and every relationship is different. The organisations and legal resources below provide reliable information about the law, available support and current guidance in England and Wales.




bottom of page