Frequently, I hear stories about how victims are shamed in family court.
Survivors report perceiving impatience and skepticism from judges when they testify about their experiences with abuse. They feel pressured to expedite their testimony so the court can proceed.
Survivors sense that judges are often wary and dismissive when family violence is raised in parenting applications.
Remarks about the time elapsed between the “last incident” and the present make survivors feel their fears are deemed unfounded. When survivors recount a history of abuse, they worry it will be used against them, portraying them as incompetent parents or distorting their assertions as attempts to alienate the other parent.
Furthermore, survivors share that non-physical abuse, such as emotional, financial, and sexual abuse, is often not taken seriously in court. They fear that because these forms of abuse are frequently gradual, long-term, and difficult to corroborate with physical evidence, they are less likely to be accepted by the court as “legitimate.”
This is particularly true in cases of coercive control. While “coercive and controlling behavior” was added to the federal Divorce Act in 2021, [4] it remains a relatively new concept in family law. Coercive control is defined as “tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, and micro-regulation; where abusers instill fear, control and entrap victims, causing deep psychological, emotional, spiritual, and economic harm to the victim.” [5]
There is growing evidence that coercive control can escalate to severe and lethal violence in relationships. [6] However, coercive control is not yet a standard factor in lethality assessments for survivor safety.
Coercive behaviors during a relationship can also predict abuse and violence post-separation. [7] When an abuser loses direct access to the survivor, their need for control can manifest as escalated violence, targeting not only the survivor but also the children, either directly or as a means of affecting the survivor.
Survivors also share that judges often dismiss concerns about the dangers and impracticality of co-parenting with abusers. There is a prevailing attitude that co-parenting can occur despite a history of abuse and/or coercive behaviors, suggesting that parents can set aside their “differences” for the child’s best interest.