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.