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.
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.