Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships

Introduction

When one thinks of abuse, the first idea that comes to mind is that of physical abuse. Physical abuse may revolve around one individual causing physical harm to another individual usually in the context of an intimate relationship (Appel and Holden 1998). It makes sense that an individual would think of abuse within that context because that is the most common form of abuse. Moreover, it is relatively easy to tell if and when an individual is physically abused since there are physical signs of the abuse such as various bruises, broken bones or black eyes. There is a much harder concept of abuse that is relatively more challenging to define and that is the concept of coercive control. McLeod (2018) notes that the literature does not have a consistent definition of coercive control. Terms such as “power and control,” “controlling behavior” and “domination” are terms that are used in tandem with coercive control. According to Lammers et al. (2005), the reason that it is challenging to define coercive control properly is due to the fact that there are some significant similarities in the behaviors seen in coercive control in comparison to other forms of abuse. The types of abuse that have the same behavioral similarities include but are not limited to emotional abuse, psychological maltreatment, psychological aggression, psychological abuse, emotional blackmail and coercion and verbal abuse (McLeod 2018). Given that there is an overlap between coercive control and various other behaviors it is important to think of coercive control as a goal or an intention that a perpetrator may use to maintain control over their intended victim.

The central idea of controlling the victim is paramount when explaining coercive control. Pence and Paymar (1993) note that the Duluth Model outlines the “Power and Control Wheel” which is used to describe various behaviors that perpetrators use to control their victims in the case of domestic abuse. At the center of the wheel is power and control and that gives an overall understanding of what coercive control. It is interesting that in the Duluth Model, physical violence is on the outside of the wheel while other behaviors such as intimidation, isolation, threats and financial abuse are closer to the center (Pence and Paymar 1993). Perpetrators will use physical violence if and when then other behaviors do not work. In the future, the victim will not act out because they are afraid of the physical abuse that may take place. Given the background information, the UK Government has developed a definition of coercive and controlling behavior. To quote the definition verbatim, “Controlling behavior is a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behavior” (Home Office 2015). “Coercive behavior is a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation, and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim” (Home Office 2015). Given the above definitions, coercive control is a pattern of assault that results in a victim being isolated from their support network and being reliant on the perpetrator (BBC 2018). Given the above definition, there are various manifestations of coercive control with the key manifestation happening in the context of domestic abuse and the other in relation to children who are exposed to the domestic abuse and coercive control. This paper will explore the concept of coercive control within an intimate relationship and switch to exploring the concept in relation to children.

Coercive Control and Intimate Relationships

The most common and prevalent manifestation of coercive control lies in the context of intimate relationships. Hlavaty and Haselschwerdt (2019) note that in the context of an intimate relationship, coercive control is rooted in one romantic partner’s intentional domination and control over their partner’s daily life and various activities through the threat of physical violence or nonphysical abuse tactics. While both men and women can be affected by coercive control, it is women who are the ones who are most affected. Johnson (2008) suggests that in relation to coercive control it is women who are most affected in what the researcher describes as intimate terrorism. That is not to mean that men cannot be affected too, but that it is women who are disproportionately affected by coercive control. When looking at coercive control in the context of an intimate relationship, it is usually perceived through the lens of domestic violence. In the international scene, domestic violence is documented, and it is very widespread. In 2013 the World Health Organization noted that around 30% of women have experienced and continue to experience physical and sexual violence in the context of an intimate relationship (WHO 2013). The estimated prevalence rates for high-income countries such as the UK is 23.2% (WHO 2013). The Office of National Statistics (ONS) released a paper titled “Domestic Abuse in England and Wales,” and they noted that in the year ending March 2017 around 1.2 million adult women aged between 16 to 59 years old had experienced domestic abuse in that given year (ONS 2017). To put that into context that means that 1 out of every 17 women in the UK is a victim of domestic abuse which revolves around the use of coercive behavior (ONS 2017). The ONS (2017) also noted that on average around two women are killed by a current or former lover in the UK. This shows that domestic abuse is prevalent not only in the UK but also internationally. Having noted the prevalence of domestic abuse, it is challenging to note the prevalence rates of coercive and controlling behavior in the context of an intimate relationship. McLeod (2018) notes that the challenge lies in the manner which agencies use to identify coercive behavior and the fact that it is challenging to prove coercive behavior because it leaves no physical evidence. Byrnes (2018) synonymizes coercive control within the context of an intimate relationship as basically walking on eggshells because an individual is afraid of their partner. In a normal relationship, one is willing to do whatever they can for their partner, but one is not doing it out of fear. In a relationship where coercive control exists, an individual will perform acts for their partner simply because they are afraid of their partner and the fact that their partner may hurt them in one way or another (Byrnes 2018). The fact an individual is afraid of their partner shows that it is the partner who has all the power within the relationship. This boils down to the fact that coercive control is about power and dominating the other individual in the relationship. It is intertwined with domestic abuse only that its effects are not clearly seen and cannot be easily deduced.

Perpetrators Use of “Credible Threat”

The other method that perpetrator use is that they use the idea of a “credible threat.” According to Dutton et al. (2005), coercive control is established through negative reinforcement or punishment which is the basis of the power that the perpetrator has over the victim in the context of an intimate relationship. The credible threat comes in the form of physical violence. The Duluth Power and Control Wheel noted that physical violence is used as an instrument for enforcing power and control (Pence and Paymar 1993). Hamberger et al. (2017) also note that the threat has to be credible if the perpetrator is going to control the victim. The perpetrator will ensure that the victim is aware that they are willing to deliver negative consequences and that they have the ability to do so. An example of the context of an intimate relationship is in the form of a beating. The perpetrator, usually the man, will threaten the victim, usually, the woman that they are going to beat them if they do not do what the perpetrator wants. The victim is inclined to believe the perpetrator because they have experienced a beating in the past. The threat of looming violence is enough to make the victim do what the perpetrator wants without question. There are many other behaviors that use violence as a credible threat to get the victim to do what they want to do. The above shows that there is an overlap between violence and coercive control which makes it hard to differentiate coercive control from violence. Still in relation to credible threat is the focus of perpetrators on the use of the home. McLeod (2018) notes that in intimate relationships one manner through which a credible threat is maintained is by threatening the victim with homelessness or telling them that they will find them regardless of where they went. There has been countless research on the fact that families that have been exposed to domestic abuse have had to move countless times in fear of the perpetrator. Radford et al. (2011) interviewed 37 mothers who had been subjected to domestic abuse, and the majority of the mothers stated that they had moved homes more than once. The researchers also interviewed children who had been subject to domestic abuse and two siblings under nine years old stated that they had moved houses more than eight times and moved from their school more than seven times while trying to escape the perpetrator (Radford 2011). In an intimate relationship with children, the threat to the children was also used as a credible threat against the victim. Lapierre (2010) notes that some women decided not to disclose the abuse that they were experiencing to the relevant agencies because they were afraid of their children being removed from the house. The perpetrators may use the threat of taking the children or harming the children to make the victim comply. McLeod (2018) notes that in the context where the perpetrator is the man which is usually almost all the time, they will attack the mothering skills of the women that they want to control. The woman will not report the abuse because she is afraid of being perceived as a bad mother.

Isolation

While it is hard to know whether an individual is under coercive control, there are a number of behaviors that have been noted that can help in identifying whether one is under coercive control. As stated in previous paragraphs the behaviors tend to overlap with other behaviors, but they are usually geared towards the goal of controlling, dominating and manipulating the individual. A key effect of coercive control is isolating the individual. Stark (2015) notes that the purpose of isolating the individual is to ensure that the victim does not have a support circle that they can help them. In an intimate relationship, it is usually the man who will ban the woman from spending time with her friends or her family. In a situation where the victim wants to spend time with their friends and family, the perpetrator will insist on being part of the meeting. They are usually afraid that the victim will reveal what they are going through to their friends and family. An isolated individual is easier to control as opposed to an individual who has a strong support system. Williamson (2010) observes that the purpose of isolating the woman from her network of support benefits the perpetrator who will continue to control and manipulate the woman without being challenged. Monckton-Smith et al. (2017) carried out a study where they reviewed around 350 cases of homicide committed by men against women. They found that in 78% of the cases the men had isolated the women from their support systems (Monckton-Smith et al. 2017). Some researchers identified a pattern where they noted that isolated women were usually in relationships with men who were aggressively controlling and who imposed restrictions on every facet of their lives thus effectively ensuring that they were isolated from their support system (Sidebotham et al. 2016). While it will be explored in another manifestation of coercive control, isolating the woman had adverse consequences for the children too. Isolating the mother effectively isolates the child since it is usually the mother who takes children to various functions.

Another manner through which the women are isolated is by setting a high and unrealistic bar in relation to the chores that have to be completed. Coy et al. (2012) notes that some women are afraid to leave the house because they were afraid that there some chores that they may not have finished. Katz (2016) also noted that some women were afraid to take their children to other children’s parties or even to go to the supermarket because their husbands would accuse them of having an affair. The isolation tactics show that children are also affected. The children will not have an opportunity to socialize with their peers which is a requirement for proper development. The key effect of isolating women is that it affects the manner in which they interact with services. The women will be afraid of speaking to the police or social workers because they are afraid that the perpetrator will find out which will end up making things worse. The perpetrator will trap the mother and the children in a reality that is shaped by manipulation, excuses, and distortions which is a way through which they can keep them compliant and isolate them from their support groups while making them afraid to speak out.

Distorting Reality

The other method that is used in the context of an intimate relationship to exert power and control over the victim is distorting the reality. Distorting reality involves making the victim question their own reality, and some would describe it, they feel that they are “going mad/crazy.” The key term that has been used to describe this distortion or reality is gaslighting” (Tracy 2016). Some victims that have been interviewed synonymized the shift in their partners to that of Jekyll and Hyde. They stated that their partners were loving and affectionate while they were out in public, but within the confines of their home, they were dominant and abusive (Enander 2011). The shift in their partner's characters makes the women afraid to report the abuse because they are afraid that they are not going to be believed. In the eyes of the public, their partner is the paragon of a good partner, but when they are in private, they shift to their abusive persona. There are several ways through which perpetrators distort the reality of their victims. There are some that refuse to tell their women about the change in their shift patterns, so their children are unable to make plans to see their friends and family; some turn their women’s alarm clocks off so that they end up being late for work; some threaten to plant drugs on their women and report them to the police is they tried to leave; others undo the household chores that their women have done and then tell them that they have not even started doing the work (Coy et al. 2012). Different perpetrators do different things, but the purpose of those things is to distort the reality of their victims.

Deprivation of Resources and Monitoring

The other method that coercive control presents itself in the context of an intimate relationship is through the deprivation of resources. Kelly et al. (2014) note that the main reason that perpetrators deprive their victims of resources is so that they can reduce their “space for action.” Limiting the space of action means that the ability of the victims to make decisions and choices is severely limited because they do not have the resources needed for them to actualize their decisions. The perpetrators will deny their victim's money, food, transport and even refuse them heating in the midst of winter. This factor has a cultural context in it where the men have always been the ones that control the factors of production while the women stay at home. As such, the women were dependent on the men to meet their needs. If and when the man decided that he would not give the woman the resources that she needed, the woman was effectively bound because she did not have the resources that she needs to make her own decisions. Thiara (2010) terms the deprivation of resources as a form of “micro-management” where the perpetrator wants to limit the moves of their partners and in modern times, they mostly do that through limiting their finances. Sharp (2008) carried out a study of 49 women who had undergone economic abuse and identified for recurrent themes in relation to economic abuse which are interfering with the woman’s employment; preventing the woman from having money; refusing to contribute to household bills; creating debt for which the women are liable. In the case where the victim and the abuser have children, the abuser ensures that the victim spends all their resources on taking care of the children which leaves them with little to no resources to spend on themselves or on other activities outside of the home (McLeod 2018). The overall purpose of economic deprivation is to ensure that the victim relies on the perpetrator for their economic needs. On top of the deprivation of resources, the victim will also be monitored. This shows that coercive control is not only limited to the household but that it can also occur outside the house. Home Office (2015) notes that perpetrators can monitor the victims from afar by using their phone or various social media sites. McLeod (2018) notes that such type of surveillance has been termed “jealous surveillance” and it usually ends in the victim being accused of being unfaithful by the perpetrator. In such instances, the women will choose to stay at home to avoid further conflict. By choosing to stay home, the woman will be effectively monitored and isolated from their support group.

Responses by Policy Makers

There have been various responses by psychologists, policymakers, and others in relation to coercive control. A key response by policymakers revolves around accepting coercive control as a form of domestic abuse. In the UK, there is Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which deals with controlling or coercive behavior within an intimate or family relationship (CPS 2017). Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act made coercive control or behavior an offense under the law. Before the law was introduced, it was very challenging in proving that there was patterned behavior in relation to an intimate relationship. Section 76 states that an offence is committed by A if: “A repeatedly or continuously engages in behavior towards another person, B, that is controlling or coercive; “and at the time of the behavior, A and B are personally connected; “and the behavior has a serious effect on B; “ and A knows or ought to know that the behavior will have a serious effect on B” (CPS 2017). The law also states what it means to be “personally connected.” A and B are personally connected if. “they are in an intimate personal relationship; or “they live together and are either members of the same family; “or they live together and have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other” (CPS 2017). There are two ways through which it can be proved that A’s behavior has a serious effect on B. A’s behavior has serious effects on B “if it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them” and “if it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities” (CPS 2017). Additionally, the behavior must have been engaged in a repeated and continuous manner since it is not a one-off thing. Moreover, the behavior must have a serious effect on the individual and the way of proving that is by causing one to fear on at least two occasions that violence would be used against them. The prosecution must also prove that the intent of those actions was to control and coerce an individual. When a person is found guilty under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act of 2015 is liable “on conviction or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both; on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine, or both” (CPS 2017). The law also states various behaviors that can be used as proof of coercive control and they include but are not limited to isolating a person from their friends and family, depriving an individual of their basic needs, monitoring an individual through online communication tools, threats to hurt or kill, threats to harm a child and threats to publish private information (CPS 2017). Therefore, policymakers have responded in a superb manner by ensuring that coercive control is a crime that is punishable under the law. The policies have helped deal with the issue of coercive control in a superb manner. They have helped reduce instances of coercive control because they have given individuals a framework for reporting. Moreover, it has helped in demystifying the issues that revolve around coercive control. There are a number of recommendations that can be made, a precedent should be set by the courts that can be used when prosecuting coercive control. A precedent set by the courts will make it easier when trying cases revolving around coercive control. Second, it is very challenging to prove that an individual felt fear on different occasions. The law should include the use of qualified psychologists or psychiatrists whose expert testimony will corroborate that an individual is in fear of their partner which will be proof that the partner is applying coercive control tactics. Third, the law should be amended to take the matter more seriously when there are children involved in the matter. In such a time, the children should be kept safe by leaving them with a court appointed guardian to shield them from the detrimental effects of the criminal process.

Coercive Control and Children

In the subsequent paragraphs, coercive control as it pertains to children will be used interchangeably with the term “child abuse.” A lot of information has been revealed in relation to coercive control in the context of intimate relationships because it is the manifestation that is most documented. However, there is some literature that notes coercive control as it pertains to children. Usually, when one parent is the perpetrator and the other the victim, children tend to come up. The perpetrator can use the children as a means through which they will get the victim to stay. McLeod (2018) notes that one parent coercively controlling another will cause direct harm to the children. Children being exposed to such an environment will be impaired in one way or another because they have been exposed to the ill-treatment of another individual. Devaney (2015) notes that there are three reasons why domestic abuse perpetrators will turn out to child abuse. First, the perpetrator will not distinguish between family members. Second, the adult victims will not be in a position to protect their children from the violent perpetrator. Third, children may become injured if and when they try to intervene between the perpetrator and the victim (Devaney 2015). Children living in an environment where coercive control is rampant are not protected from its effects. McLeod (2018) notes that the perpetrator may control the mother by abusing the children or abuse the children by involving them in the abuse of their mother. Children who live in an environment where coercive control is rampant are 4.4 times likely to experience physical violence and neglect as opposed to children who live in environments where coercive control does not exist (Radford et al. 2011). The literature shows that the key interaction between coercive control and children lies in the effects that the children experience.

Alienating the Children from the Mother

A correlation has been established between coercive control and children experiencing neglect. Morris (2009) notes that in an environment where coercive control is normalized there is maternal alienation. Maternal alienation is the perpetrator's method of alienating the children from their mother to keep them from presenting a united front or from forming an alliance. The perpetrator may form an alliance with the children by recruiting them to abuse their mother directly (Morris 2009). In this context, the child will lose all respect for their mother since they have been shown that there is only one way to treat their mother and that is by abusing her. Recruiting the children into the abuse will affect their future relationships since they will learn that the only way that they can interact with other individuals is by abusing them (McLeod 2018). The perpetrator will form an alliance with the children by spending time and finances on them. They will take the children out to eat, to the park, and even buy them toys and other goodies. The purpose of doing so is to recruit the children to their side by making the perpetrator appear fun (Coy et al. 2012). When the perpetrator appears fun, the children will blame the victim for the abuse instead of standing with the individual that has been abused. In situations where joking, playing, and spending money on the children does not work, the perpetrator will use threats to ensure that the children participate in the abuse against the victim. Coy et al. (2012) note that while the perpetrator will alienate the children from the victim, their main goal is to control the victim by using the children. Recruiting the children to their side casts the victim as a bad mother, and that will cause them to be afraid to speak out.

Undermining the Victim’s Role as a Parent

The other way in which the perpetrator will control the children is by undermining the role of the victim as a parent. Lapierre (2010) notes that when the victim is a mother, the perpetrator will attack their ability to be a mother and use that to exercise their control and domination over the woman. Women exposed to coercive control will often lose confidence in their ability to parent the children. Coy et al. (2012) note that one of the ways that the perpetrator will undermine the parenting skills of the victim is by encouraging the children to question the authority of their mother. Johnson (2008) notes that other ways through which children will be used by the perpetrator to stalk and monitor the victim and report the information that they collect to the perpetrator. The information that the children provide will be used to legitimize the violence that the victim will experience. The children will be accomplices since they have provided the information that has led to the victim being thrashed. The children will see that the victim is being abused because they did not adhere to the rules set by the perpetrator. Johnson (2008) notes that the perpetrator will undermine the victim’s role as a parent by limiting their freedom which will make them unable to establish a consistent routine for their children. The children will see the perpetrator as the one with the time, money, and resources to help them maintain a proper routine in relation to school and other things and they will lose respect for the victim as a parent. The behavior will impact the children because it will teach them that their mother is not worthy of respect and children will treat the victim with no respect. This will create a perpetual cycle in which the children feel that their relationship with their mother is not fruitful which makes it difficult for the mother to enforce boundaries within the home.

Victims as Protective Parents

While it is the victims who act as the protective parents, the children are the ones that are affected by the victim’s actions. Wendt et al. (2015) note that there are two ways which victims will seek to protect their children: protecting the children from the physical violence being perpetrated against the children by the abuser and protecting the children by creating an environment which is free from abuse. Coercive control will mean that the women will not be able to disclose the abuse to their children and they will try to manage the harm and risk for themselves. Haight et al. (2007) observe that there are four strategies that mothers will use to protect their children. First, reassuring and supporting where mothers will reassure their children that they are loved and that they will be taken care of and that they are safe. Second, limited truth-telling which involves mothers telling their children factual information but in a way that does not traumatize them. Third, instilling hope which involves directing the hopes of the children to a future where the abuse will have ended. Fourth, prevention education where mothers stress to their children that violence is wrong and they teach them alternative ways through which they can solve a conflict. While the children are protected from the direct abuse by the victims, they can still feel its effects, and that affects them in one way or another.

Responses by Policy Makers and Psychologists

The response by policymakers has been documented. Coercive control has been made a crime under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015; therefore, there is no need to repeat the information. However, it is important to note that some children may be taken away from their families if and when the abuse is deemed to be detrimental for their continued health. Psychologists have also responded to the manifestation of coercive control as it relates to children. Research on the effects of children growing up in an environment of abuse and coercive control has increased. McLeod (2018) notes that children who grow up in a household of abuse are more likely to experience poor mental health and poor relationships with their peers. They are more reluctant to trust others, and they feel a lack of security and safety. The children are used to relationships being guided by coercive control which means that they do not have a conception of what a healthy relationship should be (McLeod 2018). Psychologists have noted the effects that coercive control has on children, and they seek to help them live normal lives. Psychologists teach the children how to manage and reduce stress by finding a socially appropriate outlet and also teaching them various conceptions of what entails a healthy relationship (McLeod 2018). Therefore, both policymakers and psychologists have responded appropriately in relation to the coercive control as it affects children. The recommendations made when discussing Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 should also be applied here.

Conclusion

Coercive control may be challenging to define, but its intent and effect are clear, the perpetrator seeks to control the victim. There are a number of manifestations of coercive control with the most common being manifestation in intimate relationships followed by manifestation in relation to children. In intimate relationships, the perpetrator will use the threat of violence to get the victim to comply with their wishes without complaint. The perpetrator will seek to isolate the victim from their support system, deny them resources such as money, food, and clothing, monitor their every move and limit their movement. In relation to children, the children will be recruited in abusing the victim who is usually the mother. The perpetrator will paint themselves as the “fun” parent which cause the children to blame the victim for the abuse they are experiencing. The victim’s parenting skills will be undermined by the perpetrator which will cause the children to lose respect for them, and the victim will try to play a role in protecting the children from the perpetrator. The government has acted by making coercive control and/or behavior a crime punishable by law under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Psychologists have acted by realizing that domestic abuse takes more than one form and that coercive control may have more detrimental effects than actual physical abuse. Coercive control manifests itself in different contexts but the purpose is always the same, and that is to control the victim.

References

Appel E, N. & Holden W, G., 1998. The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Physical Psychology, vol. 12(4), pp. 578-599.

Devaney, J., 2015. Research review: The impact of domestic violence on children. Irish Probation Journal, vol. 12, pp. 79-94.

Enander, V., 2011. Leaving Jekyll and Hyde: Emotion work in the context of intimate partner violence. Feminism and Psychology, vol. 21(1), pp. 29-48.

Haight, W., Shim, W., Linn, L. and Swinford, L. 2007. Mothers’ strategies for protecting children from batterers: The perspectives of battered women involved in child protective services. Child Welfare, vol. 86(4), pp. 41-62

Hamberger, L., Larsen, S. and Lehrner A., 2017. Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior vol.37, pp. 1-11.

Hlavaty, K. & Haselschwerdt L, M., 2019. Domestic violence exposure and peer relationships: Exploring the role of coercive control exposure. Journal of Family Violence, doi: 10.1007/s10896-019-00044-4

Johnson, M., 2008. A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

Katz, E., 2016. Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, vol. 25(1), pp. 46-59.

Lammers M., Ritchie J., and Robertson, N., 2005. Women’s experience of emotional abuse in intimate relationships: A qualitative study. Journal of Emotional Abuse, vol. 5(1), pp. 29–64.

Lapierre, S., 2010. More responsibilities, less control: Understanding the challenges and difficulties involved in mothering in the context of domestic violence. British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40(5), pp. 1434-1451.

Monckton-Smith, J., Szymanska, K., and Haile, S., 2017. Exploring the relationship between stalking and homicide. London: Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

Morris, A., 2009. Gendered dynamics of abuse and violence in families: Considering the abusive household gender regime. Child Abuse Review, vol. 18(6), pp. 414-427.

Pence, E. & Paymar, M., 1993. Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Radford, L., Aitken, R., Miller, P., Ellis, J., Roberts, J. and Firkic, A., 2011. Meeting the needs of children living with domestic violence in London: Research report. London: NSPCC and Refuge.

Sidebotham, P., Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Dodsworth, J., & Garstang J., 2016 Pathways to harm, pathways to protection: A triennial analysis of serious case reviews 2011 to 2014. Final report. London: Department for Education.

Thiara, R., 2010. Continuing control: Child contact and post-separation violence. in Thiara R and Gill A (eds) (2010) Violence against women in South Asian communities: Issues for policy and practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Wendt, S., Buchanan, F. & Moulding, N., 2015. Mothering and domestic violence: Situating maternal protectiveness in gender. Affilia, vol. 30(4), pp.533-545.

Williamson, E., 2010. Living in the world of the domestic violence perpetrator: Negotiating the unreality of coercive control. Violence Against Women, vol. 16(12), pp. 1412-1423.