CCChat-Magazine_4

The crucial point is this:
It is EXTREMELY difficult to legislate for a course
of conduct crime that is specific to the individual.
The law has been drafted in a way so that it can
encompass various situations and the guidance
notes offer a list of behaviours as a guide.
These are EXAMPLES. The list is there to give an
example of the types of behaviour cc can
encompass, it is not a tick list and, unfortunately,
that is how it is being interpreted in the vast
majority of cases.
Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour which
seeks to subjugate a victim and has a serious effect
on them.
Contact denial is not Coercive Control This is most
probably the biggest misconception and the one
that generates the most resistance even to the
point of abuse.
There may be a substance abuse issue, there may
be neglect. Not uncommon for a controlling
parent to demand 50% contact as their ‘right’ only
for them to offload their child onto a childminder,
a neighbour, a new partner which may not be in
the interests of the child.
To be part of a pattern of behaviour there would
need to be a history of controlling and coercive
behaviour which has had a serious effect on the
victim which can continue post separation
through the courts, through the child.
It is not simply a tick list of 2 incidents.
Parental alienation, again, is not coercive control.
As part of a pattern of abuse it can be but this is
not to be confused with spite, anger, revenge etc.
Parental alienation is also not solely a tool for the
parent with residency.
It is EXTREMELY difficult to legislate for a course of
conduct crime that is specific to the individual.
Contact denial is NOT coercive control for the
purposes of s76 as it is post separation abuse.
'Family situation' in the act includes people who
were in a relationship but still living under one
roof but it would be a pretty big house for one
parent to deny contact when they are all under
one roof.
Outside of the statute, in the family courts,
contact denial is also not coercive control. It CAN
be but isn’t automatically so.
COERCIVE CONTROL DOES NOT
MANIFEST AT THE END OF A
RELATIONSHIP. It will have been there
throughout the relationship. When there is
contact denial and manipulative behaviour, the
chances are it is anger spite revenge fear.
Breakdowns create intense emotions and quick
fire reactions that may not be there when the raw
pain has subsided. It is simply notthe case that a
break up will have been the beginning of coercive
control if there was none before.
It needs to be remembered that contact denial can
also be a response to a genuine concern a child
may be at risk and that risk goes beyond domestic
violence.
Non resident parents are capable of turning a
child against the resident parent and this is often
forgotten in the false narrative of the corrupt
family court where every father is seen as an
abuser. It is simply not true. Some parents will
recruit their child to spy on the resident parent
and feedback information with, as is often the
case, bribes or extra freedoms.
At this stage, probably only 1/3 of the polices
forces in the U.K. have received some form of
coercive control training that is adequate and,
even with that training, cc with its bespoke nature,
will always be an incredibly difficult crime to
identify, evidence and prosecute.
Much of the understanding takes time to process.
Often victims are disoriented and unaware that
they are victims of abuse having likely been
brainwashed by the perpetrator into believing
they are the villain, that it is their fault, that they
are mentally ill and an unsuspecting police officer
can miss the signs if they are not professionally
curious.
To better understand coercive control, we need to
understand WHAT it is and not define it as
something whatever we want it to be.
Min Grob
Merry Christmas from CCChat