Rachel Cook

Rachel Cook is a criminal solicitor with extensive experience advising individuals and families at the intersection of criminal and family proceedings. She regularly advises clients at the police station and acts in complex cases involving allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, domestic abuse and reputational risk. Rachel works closely with family law teams to provide strategic, joined up advice for clients navigating separation, child arrangements and parallel investigations.

Image by Envato

Coercive Control, Marital Conduct and Financial Remedies

Published on
Rachel Cook
Rachel Cook
Of Counsel
Peters &Peters

Recent reporting of the decision in LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 has brought renewed attention to an issue that continues to evolve within family law: the extent to which coercive and controlling behaviour can directly affect financial outcomes on divorce.

In that case, the Family Court reduced one party’s entitlement significantly, awarding 30% of the relevant assets rather than an equal share. The court did so having made findings, to the civil standard, that the party had engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour alongside other “deplorable” conduct.

The underlying facts were striking. The parties married in 2011 and separated in 2023. The relationship appears to have been characterised by deception on the wife’s part, including a claim that she was a High Court judge, despite having no legal training or qualifications.

During the marriage, the husband alleged coercive and controlling behaviour, alongside verbal, emotional and, in later years, serious physical abuse. Those allegations had already been examined in earlier Children Act proceedings, where they were found to be truthful. The court also found breaches of a non-molestation order and that the wife had made false and malicious allegations of sexual abuse against the husband in relation to their child.

Against that background, the Family Court was required to determine what constituted a fair financial outcome.

From a criminal law perspective, what is striking is not only the outcome, but how familiar the underlying allegations are. Conduct of this nature is routinely encountered within the criminal justice system. Increasingly, however, patterns of behaviour are being examined at the same time in family proceedings.

Understanding coercive and controlling behaviour

Coercive and controlling behaviour is widely recognised as a form of domestic abuse. It describes a pattern of conduct designed to control, isolate or intimidate another person over time. This may include psychological abuse, financial control, monitoring of communications, or restricting independence.

Since 2015, such behaviour has also constituted a criminal offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. Criminal practitioners are therefore accustomed to seeing these patterns assessed through investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution.

Its role in financial remedy proceedings has been less straightforward. Courts have traditionally been cautious about allowing conduct to influence financial awards unless there is a clear and measurable financial consequence.

LP v MP and the question of fairness

The decision in LP v MP reflects a more nuanced approach.

The court found that the wife had engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, including emotional, physical and financial abuse. Those findings were made on the balance of probabilities and informed by earlier proceedings. A criminal prosecution was ongoing, but the court declined to delay the financial determination.

In considering the impact of that conduct, the court acknowledged the high threshold for taking conduct into account. At the same time, it recognised that the effects of coercive control may not be readily quantifiable in financial terms.

The judge emphasised that there is a real risk of unfairness if such behaviour is disregarded simply because its financial consequences cannot be precisely measured. Conduct was not treated as requiring a penalty, but as part of the lens through which fairness is assessed.

This suggests a greater willingness to engage with the broader effects of coercive control when determining a fair outcome.

One set of allegations, two legal systems

For those approaching these issues from a criminal law perspective, the more complex question lies in how the same allegations are handled across different jurisdictions.

Conduct which may give rise to a criminal investigation is often relied upon simultaneously in family proceedings. Yet the two systems operate differently.

Criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt and are directed toward public justice. Family proceedings apply the balance of probabilities and focus on welfare and fairness between individuals. The same allegations may therefore be assessed under different standards and for different purposes.

This divergence has real consequences for how and when findings are made.

Timing and evidential tension

One of the most significant challenges arises from timing.

Criminal investigations into coercive and controlling behaviour are often lengthy. Charging decisions may take many months, with any trial much later.

Family proceedings, by contrast, are expected to progress more quickly. Fact-finding hearings may therefore take place while a criminal investigation remains ongoing.

From a criminal perspective, this creates difficulty. Individuals may be required to give detailed accounts in family proceedings, sometimes under cross-examination, before the criminal disclosure process has engaged and before the evidential picture is complete.

At the same time, family courts may be asked to determine serious allegations without access to material that has not yet emerged through the criminal investigation.

The two systems may therefore be examining the same conduct at different stages of evidential development.

Practical risks in parallel proceedings

These differences give rise to practical risks.

Allegations made to the police may be relied upon within family proceedings before they have been fully tested. The existence of an investigation may influence interim decisions or shape the narrative of a case.

Conversely, the need to progress family proceedings may require detailed allegations to be set out at an early stage. Those accounts may later be scrutinised within the criminal process.

Consistency of account becomes critical, but the objectives of each forum may not align. What assists in family proceedings may not do so in a criminal context, and vice versa.

This reflects a structural tension. Once parallel processes are engaged, decisions in one forum can have unintended consequences in the other.

Navigating an increasingly complex landscape

For practitioners, these cases require careful handling from the outset.

From a criminal law perspective, there is a need to be alert to how and when allegations are advanced in family proceedings, and to the potential impact of early evidence on any future investigation or prosecution. Family proceedings, however, are not simply be paused while the criminal process runs its course.

These cases also highlight the importance of coordinated advice across both jurisdictions. Issues that arise in family proceedings may have direct implications for any criminal investigation, and vice versa. A joined-up approach, drawing on both family and criminal expertise, is often essential to ensure that decisions taken in one forum do not inadvertently prejudice a position in the other.

For those directly involved, there may be an expectation that one system will resolve the issues raised in the other. In reality, the two operate independently, and outcomes may not align.

Moving forward

The growing recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour across both criminal and family law represents an important development. Decisions such as LP v MP suggest a greater willingness within the family courts to reflect that understanding when assessing fairness, including in financial outcomes.

At the same time, the increasing overlap between jurisdictions has introduced new complexity. The same allegations are now frequently considered in parallel, under different standards, on different timelines, and with different objectives.

From a criminal law perspective, these cases highlight a clear tension. They do not unfold within a single, coherent framework, but across two distinct systems that intersect without fully aligning.

Understanding that interplay, and navigating it with care, is becoming an essential part of modern practice.

Read more from Rachel Cook

Rachel Cook, Of Counsel, Peters & Peters

Rachel Cook is a criminal solicitor with extensive experience advising individuals and families at the intersection of criminal and family proceedings. She regularly advises clients at the police station and acts in complex cases involving allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, domestic abuse and reputational risk. Rachel works closely with family law teams to provide strategic, joined up advice for clients navigating separation, child arrangements and parallel investigations.

You might be interested in

Signs of Coercive Control, Legal Significance and Why Ruby's Law Matters
Image by Envato

Signs of Coercive Control, Legal Significance and Why Ruby’s Law Matters

Published on
Rachel Cook
Rachel Cook
Of Counsel
Peters &Peters

In 2015, the law in England and Wales fundamentally changed how domestic abuse was understood. With the introduction of section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the criminal law finally recognised that abuse does not have to be violent to be devastating. Patterns of domination, intimidation and control, often invisible from the outside, were brought within the scope of criminal liability.

A decade on, coercive and controlling behaviour (CCB) sits at the crossroads of criminal law, family law and separation disputes. For many families navigating divorce or child arrangements, it is no longer a background issue but a central one. Understanding how the offence works, how it has evolved, and how it interacts with family proceedings can make a critical difference to outcomes.

What qualifies as coercive and controlling behaviour?

Under section 76, a person commits an offence if they repeatedly or continuously engage in controlling or coercive behaviour towards a current or former intimate partner or family member, and that behaviour has a “serious effect” on the victim.

That “serious effect” is defined in one of two ways: either the victim is caused to fear violence on at least two occasions, or the behaviour causes serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day life. Importantly, the perpetrator must know, or ought to know, that their behaviour would have that effect.

What matters is pattern, not isolated incidents. Courts look at the cumulative impact of conduct over time. Individually, acts may appear trivial or even reasonable. Together, they can amount to criminal abuse.

Common examples include:

  • Monitoring movements, messages or spending
  • Restricting access to money or conditioning basic expenses on compliance
  • Isolation from friends, family or professional support
  • Undermining parenting confidence or threatening child contact
  • Using litigation, complaints or financial pressure as tools of control post-separation

The law now expressly recognises economic abuse as a core form of domestic abuse. Control over resources, enforced dependency and financial gatekeeping can satisfy the criminal threshold even where there is objective wealth.

How the offence has evolved since 2015

The offence has developed significantly since its introduction.

Charging practice and case law have clarified that prosecutors can rely on a wide range of evidence to demonstrate patterns over time: digital communications, financial records, CCTV, smart-home data and third-party testimony. Courts increasingly accept a “mosaic” approach, where meaning lies in the accumulation rather than any single act.

The scope of the offence has also expanded beyond cohabitation. Amendments now recognise post-separation abuse, reflecting the reality that control often continues, or intensifies, after a relationship ends, particularly through children or finances.

Sentencing guidance has likewise evolved, with courts treating sustained, sophisticated campaigns of control as serious offending, especially where professional status, financial power or third parties are used to entrench dominance.

Where Ruby’s Law fits in

One area that has historically been overlooked is the role of pets in coercive control. Threats to harm animals, restriction of access to veterinary care, or using pets as leverage to prevent a victim from leaving are well-documented abuse tactics.

Surrounding the recent publication of the Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy, there has been an increased demand from cross-party MPs to introduce Ruby’s Law.

Ruby’s Law seeks to close this gap by advocating for the explicit recognition of harm or threats to pets as part of coercive and controlling behaviour, and by allowing pets to be included in protective orders. This is not about elevating animals above people, but about acknowledging lived reality: for many victims, fear for a beloved pet is a decisive barrier to safety.

In family proceedings, Ruby’s Law could also provide clarity, enabling courts to address pet-related abuse directly rather than treating it as peripheral or irrelevant.

How coercive control intersects with divorce and child arrangements

Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour frequently arise during separation, often alongside disputes about children, finances or housing.

In family court, the focus is not punishment but protection and welfare. Findings of coercive control can influence:

  • Whether a fact-finding hearing is required
  • Whether contact should be supervised or restricted
  • The court’s assessment of parental insight, risk and future behaviour
  • Protective orders such as non-molestation or occupation orders

A critical point for parents is that coercive control does not require physical violence. Family courts are increasingly alive to patterns of manipulation, intimidation and emotional harm, particularly where children are exposed to controlling dynamics.

Equally, false or exaggerated allegations can have profound consequences. Lengthy investigations, interim contact restrictions and reputational damage can occur long before any finding is made. This is why early, careful legal advice is essential on both sides.

Criminal courts and family courts: parallel tracks, real consequences

Criminal and family proceedings operate independently, but they interact in powerful ways.

A police investigation or criminal charge can affect family proceedings immediately, particularly where bail conditions restrict contact or residence. Conversely, material generated in family proceedings (statements, expert reports, messages disclosed during financial disclosure) may later become relevant in a criminal case.

There are also practical tensions. Criminal courts operate on principles of open justice; family proceedings are largely private. Material cannot simply be transferred between forums without careful consideration and, often, permission.

Timing matters too. While coercive control is not subject to the six-month limitation that applies to many summary offences, delay can affect evidential strength and police appetite to prosecute. The offence is not retrospective: conduct before 2015 cannot itself be charged, though it may form relevant background.

Practical guidance for those navigating both systems

For individuals and families facing these issues, several principles consistently matter:

  • Seek early advice across disciplines. Criminal and family lawyers bring different perspectives. Coordinated advice avoids missteps that can have long-term consequences.
  • Preserve evidence. Messages, bank records, diaries and third-party accounts can be crucial, whether you are alleging abuse or defending an accusation.
  • Think strategically, not emotionally. Reporting to the police is not the only route to protection. Family law remedies may be faster and more targeted in some cases.
  • Understand the impact of interim measures. Bail conditions, protective orders and temporary contact arrangements often shape reality long before any final decision.

There is no single “right” approach. Objectives differ: safety, recognition, protection of children, reputation, or simply bringing an end to uncertainty.

Looking ahead

Coercive and controlling behaviour has reshaped how abuse is understood across both criminal and family law. Ruby’s Law represents the next step in recognising the full ecology of control within families, including the role of pets, and aligning the law more closely with lived experience.

For separating families, the message is clear: these issues are no longer marginal, and they cannot be navigated safely in silos. Early, informed and joined-up advice remains the most effective protection of all.

Rachel Cook, Of Counsel, Peters & Peters

Rachel Cook is a criminal solicitor with extensive experience advising individuals and families at the intersection of criminal and family proceedings. She regularly advises clients at the police station and acts in complex cases involving allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, domestic abuse and reputational risk. Rachel works closely with family law teams to provide strategic, joined up advice for clients navigating separation, child arrangements and parallel investigations.

You might be interested in