Coercive control doesn't exist only in intimate partner relationships it also perpetrated against children. Usually a coercive controller uses his children to harm the child's mother. Weaponizing children in this way is extremely harmful to both the mother and the child. Although for many years it has been thought that children only "witnessed" domestic violence, it is becoming more and more clear that children are often abused directly by coercive controllers hell bent on punishing their partner or ex-partner.
This video "The Timekeeper" created by Roz Davidson is a chilling example of the coercive control of children to harm the mother. It gets right to the heart of the matter while showing how incredibly damaging this subtle form of terror can be.
Although very few states in the US have coercive control laws, we are making headway. Countries that do have coercive control laws are seeing more arrests and prosecutions than ever before. And celebrities and public figures like India Oxenberg, Mark Vicente, Selena Gomez, Serena Williams, and now Ruth Dodsworth are speaking out against coercive control publicly.
Coercive and controlling behavior is becoming unacceptable to the general public. It may be happening slowly... but it IS happening!
You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this research is to explore communication behaviors between victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) and their close friends of family members.
You are eligible to participate if:
Please note that this study focuses on the experiences of friends and family members of victims, not victims.
Participation in this study involves:
If you have any questions or would like to participate in this study, please contact abigailhazlett@utexas.edu
Coercive control is experienced by most survivors as devastating and overwhelming. Coercive control is a strategic pattern of terroristic tactics used to completely dominate another person. In coercive control, the target (victim) is subjected to terroristic and torturous psychological, emotional and, sometimes even, physical abuse. These highly manipulative and deceptive tactics work together to break down the target's sense of reality and personhood... robbing them of their dignity, agency and self-esteem.
The aftermath of coercive control can leave the target with years of severe physical, emotional and psychological symptoms. Survivors often spend years, or even decades, attempting to recover, and some never fully do. The fallout from coercive control can be so completely overwhelming that many survivors find it difficult to find adequate support from friends, family or even therapists. The symptoms caused by even short-term contact with a coercive controller require specialized knowledge in thought reform, brainwashing, coercion, abuse of power, trauma and coercive control to be effective.
For these reasons, and others, creative therapies can be a safer outlet to relieve some of the trauma as a survivor works through their coercive control aftermath and trauma.
Thanks to Rebel Studio Arts, I have provided an example of art that can be healing. Expressing one's experience through images, song or movement, can help process and release some of the survivor's pain in an environment that may be less likely to re-traumatize them. If you are a survivor of coercive control, you might want to consider singing, dance, photography, scrapbooking or other forms of artwork to work through your experiences.
If you have artwork you would like to share on this blog email: kate@endccusa.com
Predators use many of the tactics of coercive control to ensnare their targets, and pedophiles are some of the most adept predatory coercive controllers on the planet. They are masters of abuse in plain sight. They have to be in order to fool the people around their targets into seeing them as harmless and loving.
Jimmy Hinton, pastor, author, speaker and trainer on the hidden abuse of predators (especially pedophiles) released his new memoir today "The Devil Inside". Jimmy and his mother Clara have lived experience in the coercive control tactics used by predators to hide their abuse because they lived with a predatory pedophile in their own home. Their pastor, Jimmy's father and Clara's husband, turned out to have been sexually assaulting children in their own home and church, and neither of them were aware of what was happening. As a matter of fact, no one other than the predator and his targets seemed to know.
"The Devil Inside" tells the story of how Jimmy's father abused and molested countless children for decades with no accountability or even awareness of this wolf in sheep's clothing within his church, family and community. Jimmy made the excruciating decision to turn his father the predator in to the police, and he now trains, teaches, consults and speaks out against abuse in plain sight. Jimmy's mission is to help faith communities to understand the tactics of coercive control and sleight of mind that predatory coercive controllers use to deceive entire congregations and communities. Jimmy and Clara's "Speaking out on Sex Abuse Podcast" offers insight into not only the coercive control tactics that predators use, but also into the ways in which churches and faith communities collude with abusers to allow abuse to continue unabated.
"The Devil Inside" is a riveting must read for anyone dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing!
I write a lot about language and terminology for domestic abuse, domestic violence and coercive control. I don't do this because I insist that people use MY language. Loading language is actually a red flag for undue influence and thought reform, other terms related to coercive control, so that is the last thing I would recommend. The recommendations I make for upgrading our terminology stems from my, and other survivors, frustration with misleading terms that have caused us pain. Any term that focuses responsibility for abuse on the target of that abuse, rather than the perpetrator, is harmful to survivors, and therefore, inaccurate.
Here are a few terms that regularly re-traumatize survivors.
For these concepts I prefer the term trauma-coerced attachment. It's not that codependence and trauma-bonding do not occur under some circumstances. (Stockholm syndrome may be the exception. The first woman "diagnosed" with Stockholm syndrome claims it was created to discredit her - a female hostage who had legitimate anger and fear toward the police in charge of protecting her.) The problem with using these terms in connection with domestic abuse, domestic violence and coercive control is that they frame the survivor's response to abuse as the problem or part of the problem, rather than making the abuser 100% responsible.
Trauma-coerced attachment, on the other hand, accurately describes the situation when a target of abuse loses their identity, agency and decision-making ability over time, but does so without making it the target's fault. The attachment that is created in trauma-coerced attachment is a "coerced" attachment. It is a deceptive and manipulated attachment (or bond) that was created purposefully by the perpetrator against the target. Trauma-coerced attachment is like psychological rape and enslavement. It is never the fault of the target!
Codependence, in contrast, is viewed as the target's problem. Therapists, friends and family members regularly expect targets of abuse to "set better boundaries" or "work on their codependency issues". Some clients may actually have boundary or codependency issues. However, it is critical to separate out these issues from abuse. If a person is always acting in codependent ways with everyone in their life, maybe they do need to set better boundaries and be less concerned about what others think of them. However, if they are in a relationship where they are being threatened, isolated, humiliated, retaliated against, punished, deceived and/or controlled by an abusive partner, the likelihood that their actions are caused by a character flaw on their part is extremely low! Even if a target of abuse has some boundary or codependency problems, if they are in an abusive environment, especially a coercively controlling one, their actions to protect themselves ought to be celebrated... not condemned. They can be taught to hold better boundaries once they have reached true safety. Until then, expecting targets to hold boundaries with a coercive controller not only creates a cruel double-bind for them, it could also be quite dangerous!
Victim is another term I have come to avoid. Again, not because it is necessarily inaccurate. People who have been targeted by abusers are victims. They have been victimized. The reason I don't care for the term is that it carries assumptions and provides perpetrators another weapon to use against them. To be survivor-focused, it's important we do everything possible to empower them toward safety, agency and dignity. The word victim does not do that. Much of society hears victim and either, 1. feels sorry for them, 2. blames them for being victimized, or 3. judges them against some ideal version of a "victim" they define in their thinking. All of these responses re-traumatize targets of abuse. They re-create the humiliation, terror, indignity and oppression of coercive control.
The term target, by contrast, points to the predatory nature of coercive control. Anyone can be a target of abuse. As a matter of fact, many targets are chosen specifically because they have super traits, or high levels of empathy, cooperation and conscientiousness. These highly conscientious individuals would be the last people to "play the victim", a common refrain covert abusers use to turn the tables when their target outs them to others.
Terms like high conflict are also problematic. Labeling a divorce case that includes a coercive controller high conflict is like labeling a terrorist attack high conflict. Were the Twin Towers hit because of the victim's "conflict" with the terrorists? Of course not! So, why do we use the mutualizing language of high conflict to describe a target attempting to escape a perpetrator of coercive control? Coercive control is terroristic in nature. If we wouldn't hold a victim of a terrorist attack responsible for the "conflict", we shouldn't hold a target of abuse responsible either. But our family court system frames coercive control cases this way regularly, creating an environment rife with re-traumatization for targets.
So, the language we use is important, not because survivors need to control professional jargon. It is important because the jargon was created within an inaccurate model, that didn't fully understand the malevolent pattern of coercive control. Now that we have the term coercive control to frame the most harmful type of domestic abuse, we can begin to shift our thinking AND our language to better detect and prevent it.
If the site looks a little different, it's because we have a completely new web site and blog. End Coercive Control USA's new platform will allow us to offer courses and lots of other important resources for coercive control professionals and survivors online. Woo Hoo!
As founder and CEO of ECCUSSA, much of my understanding of coercive control has expanded over the past 14 months of writing and studying the psychology of coercive control. So, rather than migrating over all of my blog posts, some of which contained limited understandings, I opted instead to select some of the most popular posts to include from the previous blog.
I continue to research and study coercive control, intimate partner violence, domestic abuse, and the systems within which coercive control is able to thrive. This new blog will be an ongoing refinement of that knowledge and experience.
Thank you for joining me. I am glad that you decided to stop by. 🙂
Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act of 2015 created a monumental shift in how domestic abuse is addressed in the United Kingdom. It added coercive and controlling behaviors as a serious offense, essentially criminalizing coercive control. However, the Domestic Abuse Bill proposed in 2019, and still in progress, includes another important distinction. It removes the language of domestic violence and replaces it with the term domestic abuse.
Why is this meaningful? It is meaningful because it much more accurately describes what targets of abuse actually endure. The term domestic violence implies two things: 1. a crime that occurs within a family and 2. one that includes violence... physical violence. But as a survivor of said crime, I must insist that domestic violence doesn't even begin to adequately describe what was done to me... or the hundreds of other targets of abuse that I know.
As many survivors contend, the violence is not the worst part. The physical violence is a mere punctuation mark in a long series of emotional, financial and psychological indignities, a long purposeful pattern of cruel and humiliating violations of one's identity and agency. The thing that most people think is domestic violence is actually coercive control and/or domestic abuse. These terms more fully capture the entire pattern of abuses. They do not disregard or minimize emotional, financial or psychological abuse, as domestic violence does.
The problem with using the term domestic violence is that it completely misses the point from the target's perspective. Did he hit me? Yes, he did. But that wasn't what ripped my life apart. That wasn't what destroyed my business or my relationships with my family, colleagues and friends. That wasn't what destroyed my credit, foreclosed my home or made me feel so hopeless that suicide seemed the only viable option of escape. Domestic violence did not TRAP me! Domestic violence did not CRUSH me! Domestic violence was not what almost KILLED me! Coercive control and domestic abuse did that.
Domestic violence isn't necessarily an inaccurate term. It just isn't broad enough. I was physically attacked by my abuser, and domestic violence accurately describes those attacks. However, the bruises and cuts healed. But the scars from coercive control and domestic abuse are still healing... many years later. Some of those scars may never completely heal.
I am a domestic violence survivor, but from now on I will refer to myself as a survivor of domestic abuse and coercive control instead. Whether you are a survivor, or a friend, family member or service provider who serves survivors, I recommend you do the same.
High conflict is the typical label slapped on a divorcing couple within the United States family court system when domestic abuse and/or coercive control are a factor in the case. As far as problematic language goes, high conflict is, in my opinion, the most damaging terminology applied to victims and survivors of domestic abuse and coercive control the world over. High conflict is not only a completely inappropriate label for the problems that brought the abusive relationship to an end, it also sets the stage for systemic collusion with the abuser and/or coercive controller.
With all the systems we have in place to stop domestic abuse and domestic violence, it is still increasing! Partner homicides have increased from 3 to 4 women per day just over the past couple of years.
First, why is it inappropriate? For several reasons:
Abuse is an enormous problem! It is not a minor issue that should be glossed over. In the US alone 4 women are killed every day by a partner or ex-partner. KILLED! With all the systems we have in place to stop domestic abuse and domestic violence, it is still increasing! Partner homicides have increased from 3 to 4 women per day just over the past couple of years.
Partner assault cases and “domestic disturbances” are so high that police departments can barely keep up with the most egregious cases… let alone the “minor” ones. Protective order violations are rarely followed up on, let alone prosecuted, due in part, to the sheer volume of calls police receive.
Yet… when a divorcing couple goes to family court, and abuse has occurred, these cases are not handled with the seriousness required. The case isn’t labeled a term that reflects the reality of the danger or even the reality of the one-sided nature of abuse. Instead it is called “high conflict”. Why? Because that’s what these cases appear to be, for someone who hasn’t been adequately trained in domestic abuse and family violence.
When a target finally is able to leave her (and occasionally his) abuser, and files for divorce (especially when there are kids involved) the abuser feels his control over her slipping away. This causes him to escalate his abusive tactics in order to stop her. She, in turn, becomes more fearful of retaliation, and likely more angry at his relentless stalking and abusive demands. From the outside, this looks like a highly volatile situation… because it IS!
But what it is NOT is “high conflict”. Abusers are high conflict all by themselves! Nothing that the survivor can do is capable of de-escalating the situation, unless the abuser desires it. The abuser has ALL the control. So, although the family court professionals may believe they are seeing two unreasonable people who simply can’t “get along”, what they are actually witnessing is one party who will do almost anything to keep control of the other and a victim/survivor desperate to get away from that extreme level of control. Is there a conflict there? Certainly! But what they are in “conflict” over is the victim’s right to be a free independent person with feelings, thoughts and rights of her own. And THAT is not really conflict… that is oppression by one party and resistance to oppression by the other.
When the family court positions these cases in this way the victim/survivor is left at a significant disadvantage, because the real problem, the abuse, is ignored. If it is not ignored altogether, the term high conflict assumes that both parties are responsible… mutualizing the issue. This places unfair responsibility onto the victim. This distortion of reality then places the abuser in a position where he can do more damage to the victim, completely undetected by the courts.
Word matter! What we call something matters, because it is the frame of reference from which we view the entire situation. It is the lens that we use, the perspective that informs our decision-making. The term high conflict needs to be removed from the family court in cases where abuse has been alleged and/or proven. These cases need to be treated with the seriousness and significant dangers involved when there has been domestic abuse, domestic violence, family violence and/or coercive control. The abuser is 100% responsible for the abuse, and therefore the failure of the marriage. We must stop allowing family courts to malign and blame the victim for the horrible abuses they have suffered.
Abuse is not conflict… it is abuse!
The Power & Control Wheel, developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Daluth, MN, was created in 1984 using the input of victims and survivors of domestic violence. It details the many abusive tactics used by abusers to control and dominate their intimate partners and/or ex-partners.
The Power & Control Wheel is still used today to outline the dynamic of domestic violence and family violence… also called intimate partner violence. The Power and Control Wheel has had an enormous influence on all of the systems that have been built to identify and address domestic violence in the United States. And, in some ways, it has been a very good model indeed. However, it also has some limitations. The world has changed a lot since this model was created, and abusers are particularly good at exploiting systems that don’t change, so I think it is time for a new model.
Some of the aspects of the Power & Control Wheel that we (and by we, I mean society and its response systems) got right are the following:
Examples of the main categories of coercive control and abuse are present on the wheel. There are examples of psychological abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, isolation, threats, using children, and even, financial abuse and the use of male privilege. It’s a rather comprehensive list of abuse types… many of which can be identified as part of a pattern of coercive control.
Physical violence and sexual violence are also present on the Power & Control Wheel. These can be some of the most serious ways an abuser or coercive controller harms their victims (but not always).
Power & Control are placed at the center, demonstrating that these are the goals of the tactics being used.
And the model is characterized by a circle, showing that it’s not a linear pattern, but one that tends to go round and round, using different tactics at different times.
But I believe this model also has some pretty significant limitations. These are some of the problems I see with the Power and Control Wheel.
Visually, the model implies that physical violence and sexual violence are the main types of violence holding the pattern together. This implication has created assumptions about intimate partner violence and coercive control. And these assumptions have led to policies for detection and addressing intimate partner violence in our systems that make them, at best, ineffective, and at worst, fatal. According to Evan Stark, author of “Coercive Control – How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life”, extreme and frequent physical violence, which is how many people picture what occurs in intimate partner violence, is rare. And, even when physical violence is present, it is usually “low level assaults”, that may or may not happen frequently. And, according to Evan, many cases of coercive control don’t have ANY physical or sexual violence present at all. So… by placing physical and sexual violence on the outside rim of the circle, we have placed all of the emphasis of our detection on a factor that is far less significant than it is in reality. This has led to all sorts of problems in our systemic response.
2. There are lots of examples of tactics on the Power & Control Wheel. While this can be beneficial to a victim who is struggling to understand all of the pieces of the puzzle that held the pattern of coercive control together, examples also create a problem. The problem comes when an abuser is especially savvy, subtle, and manipulative. Victims of psychopaths especially (these are not the majority of cases, but psychopaths do make up about 1-4% of the population, and people with personality disorders make up between 15-20%) can find the Power & Control Wheel difficult to apply to their situation. Why? Because psychopaths, and covert narcissists especially, know how to hide their abuse with sleights of mind, lies, subtle re-framing of intent, and manipulative kindness. These, and other forms of gaslighting, can be very hard to see, and even though there are some examples on the Power & Control Wheel of these more subtle tactics, their placement on the wheel pales by comparison to that of physical and sexual violence on the wheel. Because of this, victims of very subtle abuse (which can sometimes be more damaging to the victim) may not recognize that they are trapped by a pattern of behaviors, since they can only find one or two examples listed. Most victims of intimate partner violence are women, and women are taught to give the benefit of the doubt in relationships, and not nag or judge too harshly. We are taught to make changes to our own behavior so as not to “provoke” a negative reactions from our partner. So, it can be extremely difficult to see only a few examples on the wheel and justify calling it abuse, domestic violence and/or coercive control.
3. Another thing that is missing from the Power & Control Wheel is the customized and individualized exploitative tactics that are a major foundation for coercive control. This one is a big one for me, because most of the coercive control that I suffered in my marriage was tailor-made to cause me extreme distress, but it was nearly invisible to everyone else. The goal of coercive control is to completely dominate the partner. And what better way to dominate someone than by the triggering their specific prior trauma, by violating their most deeply held values, and by betraying their trust? Activating someone’s prior trauma, especially when done by someone who has professed to love and support you, can cause extreme feelings of disorientation, confusion, fear and/or rage. Extreme fear makes a person compliant, rage makes them vulnerable to appearing “crazy”, “unstable”, or even “dangerous” to outsiders, and disorientation and confusion can cause all manner of mental, emotional and psychological damage. This is what my abuser did to me. All human beings have vulnerabilities. Some have more than others. People who love us do not exploit our soft spots to gain the upper hand, but someone who uses coercive control feels justified in doing just that. And, if you are unlucky enough for your coercive controller to also have sadistic tendencies… then watch out! A sadist enjoys tormenting, torturing and terrorizing their victim. Most abusers are not sadists, but those who are can use intimate knowledge of their victim to do extreme damage. One example in Stark’s book is of a woman who’s husband would bring out his gun to “clean it” anytime she did something he didn’t like. Having been previously threatened by him with that same gun, this was terrorizing to her, but invisible to anyone who might be visiting the couple. We cannot judge whether this man is a sadist based on this one example, but we can see that the damage to his wife from such an act could be deeply traumatizing. While placing examples on the Power & Control Wheel has been helpful for victims and advocates in identifying abuse, specific examples can also be misleading, especially when it comes to the subtle and individualized strategy of coercive control.
4. Which brings me to the thing that, in my opinion, is most obviously missing from this model for domestic violence… how systems and society respond to the coercive control of the abuser. What really holds the patterns of domestic violence and/or coercive control together are the responses (and anticipated responses) that a victim receives and/or perceives from the people around her them. In my case, many of my friends, family members, employees, clients, court professionals, police and child protection workers colluded, either intentionally or unintentionally, with my abuser to harm me further. Had the police and/or county attorney’s office helped me when I went to them for help early on, my coercive controller may not have escalated to a violent physical assault more than a year after I divorced him. In my case, and in all of the cases where I have advocated for victims, it is the overwhelming tendency of people to blame the victim that keeps most victims trapped in these situations. The Daluth Power and Control Wheel doesn’t provide this societal aspect as part of the model. This has left the response systems focused completely on the perpetrator and the victim, unable to make the necessary changes to support victims throughout the systems where they might try to seek help.
The Daluth Power & Control Wheel is now more than 35 years old. It was revolutionary for its time, but now it is time we update it with the new framework and understanding of coercive control. Here is one updated version that solves most of the issues I raised above. It is called the Maze of Coercive Control. You can read about it here. The one possible improvement I might recommend for the Maze of Coercive Control is to change the middle portion from “Power & Control” to “Control & Domination”. I think this more accurately reflects the intent of coercive control, and allows for victims to protect themselves with their own “personal power” without being identified with the perpetrator. (But that is a discussion for another day).