Far from being a static machine, the family justice system evolves over time.

That process is the result of case law or precedent and legislative changes introduced in and by parliament.

Arguably one of the most significant shifts in recent years has been the way in which domestic abuse is regarded and dealt with.

In the 2024 General Election, it was one of the central themes within the Labour Party’s manifesto.

That pre-ballot intention became policy last December, with the announcement of a plan to confront violence against women and girls more vigorously.

One part of what was described as a “relentless pursuit of perpetrators” was a proposed change to how the criminal courts gather information about a range of abusive behaviours, including coercive control.

It is not, of course, the first pledge to address such misconduct.

Among the provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2015 was a new offence of coercive or controlling behaviour.

More than physical and sexual abuse or assault, the scope of the Act also covered the isolation of victims from friends or family and control over many aspects of their lives, such as where they go and who they talk to.

As a result, those convicted of these crimes have, for the last decade, faced a number of possible sanctions up to a five-year jail term.

However, a recent article has questioned whether the criminal courts have been as robust as they might have been in using the powers open to them.

The story featured suggestions from the mother of a woman who killed herself following abuse by her partner that coercion was still not fully understood by juries called upon to decide whether those accused of it were guilty or not.

Whilst I should stress that Hall Brown does not, of course, act in the criminal courts, the points raised in The Times underline my experience of coercive and controlling behaviour – and, more broadly, domestic abuse – in the family courts. Such conduct is a depressingly familiar theme running through the work which I and my colleagues handle on a daily basis.

Its victims and perpetrators are both men and women, of all ages and demographic groups.

That domestic abuse is more than mere anecdote can be seen from figures released by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in the last few weeks.

They show that the number of domestic abuse remedy orders – either Non-Molestation or Occupation orders – issued by family courts has increased by almost 50 per cent in the last 10 years.

Although not an exact parallel, the rise has coincided with a greater incidence of reports of coercion and controlling behaviour made to police forces across England and Wales – up just over 12 per cent in the 12 months to the end of 2025.

That all demonstrates that the courts and law enforcement are taking such offences seriously.

Yet despite that progress, I believe that there is still much work to do.

Part of my reasoning is that, as The Times recognises, there is room for improvement in comprehending exactly what coercion and control looks like and the corrosive impact which it can have on the lives of those women and men subjected to it.

Unlike physical abuse, coercion does not necessarily leave the kind of visible injuries which can lend themselves to a prosecution.

It can amount to a cumulative series of behaviours rather than a single violent incident and is often only truly apparent during legal proceedings.

I am only too well aware of how perpetrators can effectively weaponise proceedings themselves, dragging them out to exert even more pressure on their victims, making false allegations and complicating arrangements for the raising of children.

An absence of immediate and compelling evidence means that coercive and controlling behaviour is sometimes only determined by a thorough investigation known as a Finding of Fact hearing.

Yet such proceedings can be time-consuming and, conscious of the importance of avoiding delays which might impact on the welfare of any children involved, family courts have been issued with guidance to ensure that fact finding hearings are used only where strictly relevant and proportionate, meaning in practice, many allegations go untested.

Whilst certainly not a dismissal of the severity of domestic abuse, the guidance makes clear that “controlling and coercive behaviour do not justify a different approach”.

It is my opinion that a greater exposure to and awareness of such matters over time would be helped by more specialist training throughout the family and criminal justice systems to help identify this very damaging conduct.

At Hall Brown, we are very much committed to the idea of more complete or holistic support.

In addition to working with people believing themselves victims of coercion to gather material which can prove their case – for instance, keeping journals which set out their contemporaneous feelings as behaviour happens – it means ensuring that they have access to the sort of therapeutic assistance needed to overcome their ordeal.

Like many other matters which come before the family courts, coercive and controlling behaviour is not a template offence, identical in every case.

Every set of circumstances is unique to the household or relationship in which it occurs and, therefore, cannot really be tackled with a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Early intervention and clear, consistent advice is imperative if victims and their families are to escape their torment and the Government is to meet its objective of at least reducing the incidence of domestic coercion in the future.