Why coercive control rarely affects divorce settlements

In the British family courts, coercive and controlling behaviour is rarely taken into account in divorce settlements, which can cause financial difficulties for victims of domestic abuse.

How are finances divided on divorce?

If a separating couple cannot agree on how to divide their money and property, the court can decide how their finances should be arranged. This is typically a two-step process. The first stage is computation, where the court establishes what assets exist – this can include property, pensions, savings and income. The second stage is distribution, where the court decides how to divide these assets. In accordance with Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a range of factors will be taken into consideration, including each party’s income, age, financial need, disability and child-caring responsibilities.

The court should also take into account the conduct of each spouse if any behaviour is inequitable to disregard; in other words, if it is so serious that it would be unfair to ignore. However, there is no fixed definition of this conduct and, as case law has developed, the threshold has become very high. There is therefore little room to address behaviour unless it is extreme, as the financial remedy process is primarily concerned with rehousing spouses and their families, redistributing pension income and paying living costs.

So, while coercive and controlling behaviour is recognised as a form of domestic abuse, it will not automatically influence the financial settlement.

The real-life impact

The current approach means it could cost thousands for a domestic abuse survivor to file for divorce, even though it could be saving their life. The BBC has reported on the story of a woman who said it cost over £105,000 to divorce her abusive husband. Annabelle Boucher had to pay her ex-husband £75,000 as part of the divorce settlement, in addition to £30,000 in legal costs. At the time of the divorce, Boucher’s ex-husband was going through criminal proceedings and later pleaded guilty to coercive and controlling behaviour. However, this did not have any implication on the financial remedy order.

This case highlights the issues with separating the financial consequences of a relationship from the conduct that took place within it. Coercive control is not always visible, nor is it a single incident; according to the Home Office, ‘it is an intentional pattern of behaviour which takes place over time, in order for one individual to exert power, control or coercion over another’. This could involve denying a partner’s access to money, controlling their spending, preventing them from working or sabotaging employment. In the financial settlement, the court may only take into account a spouse’s lack of income which entitles them to a lesser share, rather than considering the coercive control involved.

Change on the horizon?

There could be reforms on the way. In June, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation titled ‘A fairer end to relationships’, aiming to reform the law governing financial arrangements and protections when relationships end in England and Wales. Protection against domestic abuse was a key theme of the consultation, which invited views on ‘whether the court should give greater weight to the impact of domestic abuse, including controlling, coercive or economic abuse’ when making financial arrangements.

The consultation closed in August and the outcome is yet to be published. Whatever the solution, we sincerely hope that domestic abuse survivors are given greater protections so that they can safely leave harmful relationships without facing great financial loss.

We are here for you

If you are concerned about how domestic abuse may affect your financial settlement, our Family team is here to support you. Speak to our friendly experts on familylaw@attwaters.co.uk or 0330 221 8855.