Coercive Control and the Hidden Face of Male Victimhood

According to the Office for National Statistics, for the year ending March 2024, an estimated 1.6 million women experienced domestic abuse^[1]. While these are extremely worrisome figures, in that same period 712,000 men were also identified as victims of the same. However, their experiences remain largely overlooked in public discourse.

This piece does not seek to minimise the experiences of those 1.6 million women. Rather, this is written to raise awareness of the 712,000 men – and undoubtedly thousands more unreported – who face unique challenges as victims of domestic abuse.

Challenges faced by male victims

Societal stereotypes often paint men as strong, and emotionally resilient – traits that can make it difficult for allegations of domestic abuse to be taken seriously from male victims.

In practice, this means:

1. Men may be less likely to report abuse due to shame or fear of ridicule;
2. Support services are often geared towards women, which can leave men with fewer resources in these difficult situations; and
3. Legal professionals and courts may overlook or misinterpret signs of abuse when the victim is male.

This invisibility can be especially damaging in a family law context, where the presence of domestic abuse can have a significant impact on childcare arrangements, financial settlements, and personal safety.

How coercive control can manifest in family proceedings

In many cases, men can endure prolonged coercive and controlling behaviour, often without them recognising it as abuse until much later.

Some common patterns include:

Parental alienation and weaponising childcare arrangements through false allegations

A coercive partner may use children as leverage, threatening to restrict contact or make false allegations against the father. This can be particularly traumatic for fathers who are fully involved in their children’s lives. Gone are the days of the average family where childcare was the responsibility of the mother, and the father is the sole breadwinner. It is rare to come across parental dynamics where fathers are not engaged in their child’s development. Therefore, when false allegations are made that the father is abusive and a threat to the family when the reality is quite the opposite, it takes an extremely heavy toll on those fathers as it can feel like the burden of proof has been reversed, and it is suddenly on them to prove that they are the diligent and caring father that they say that they are.

The case of F v M [2025] EWHC 621 (Fam) is a notable recent example of false allegations being made about a father. In this case, the mother (M) pleaded that the father (F) had been coercive and controlling towards her. However, Mr Justice Hayden concluded that despite clear cultural and familial complexities and pressures, it would otherwise have been 'almost an insult to this happy period in the couple’s life to describe F’s behaviour as coercive and controlling'. While Mr Justice Hayden did not comment on the toll these specific allegations would have had on F, one can see how this would have a profound effect on his wellbeing.

Mr Justice Hayden also highlighted the wider consequences of making such false allegations to further one’s one motivations. '[Coercive and controlling behaviour] is frequently an insidious abuse … as the case law shows, [victims] frequently doubting their own perceptions' and any 'allegations wrongly brought, may serve […] to make life more difficult for a genuine victim in the future'. The danger is that false allegations of abuse made against a man may discourage male victims from coming forward to seek help for fear that false allegations may in turn be made against them.

It is statistically more likely that men will be the perpetrators of domestic abuse, and in such cases the protection of spouses and children must be paramount, but this does not detract from the fact that it is a profound challenge for the courts when allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour are fabricated.

In these instances, the presumption of safeguarding can inadvertently lead to severe consequences for innocent fathers including prolonged separation from their children, sometimes lasting months or  years. The courts, operating under a necessary caution, may give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser, but this can result in the accused suffering a form of systemic harm if court delays lead to long-term separation from their children.

Family courts in England and Wales are overburdened and under-resourced, leading to long wait times for hearings, expert assessments, and final determinations. A father seeking to challenge false allegations may wait months just to be heard, and even longer to gather evidence and obtain a fact-finding hearing. During this time, the status quo shifts – children may become distant, emotionally influenced, or even alienated, making reunification more complex.

Moreover, the legal process to reinstate contact is not straightforward. It often involves multiple stages: responding to safeguarding letters, attending a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA), possibly undergoing a Section 7 report, potentially also a psychological assessment, and lastly attending a final hearing. Each step can be delayed by court backlogs, adjournments, or the need for additional evidence.

This raises a critical question: how can the system balance the need to protect the vulnerable with the rights of a parent to maintain a relationship with their child, especially when the allegations are later discovered to be unfounded? The longer the delay in resuming the contact between the parent and child, the harder it becomes to restore the original parent-child bond, and the more entrenched the harm becomes.

Of course, indirect contact, in most cases, is maintained throughout these proceedings, no matter how concerning the allegations are. However, Facetime calls on a weekly basis is an extreme shift from the arrangements that likely previously existed, and the ‘exiled’ parent will always be at the mercy of the other parent to ensure the children are made available, which is not always the case. This might be due to the unpredictability of life and child-raising but could also be a form of control and emotional abuse towards the non-resident parent. Greater sensitivity and awareness of these possibilities is needed.

Financial abuse

Although financial abuse is more likely to be experienced by women than men, it is important to recognise that male victims of this form of abuse can also find themselves cut off from joint accounts, burdened with debt they didn’t incur, or manipulated into unfavourable financial agreements.

One of the most notable recent cases which demonstrate this is DP v EP (Conduct; Economic Abuse; Needs) [2023] EWFC 6) which resulted in a departure from equality on account of the wife’s conduct amounting to economic abuse of her vulnerable (blind and illiterate) husband.

Whilst again, this is less common for men to experience, this nevertheless serves as a reminder that such victims do exist and must be recognised, respected and given the support they need.

Legal remedies and challenges

While Non-Molestation Orders and Occupation Orders of course exist as possible remedies, one must not forget the emotional and psychological tolls of making such applications. Coercive control is often subtle and psychological, making it difficult to prove without expert legal support. A lack of evidence can therefore be a real barrier to proving an allegation.

Further, male victims can often face unique challenges including:

1. Scepticism from authorities: Police or social workers may be less responsive to male reports of abuse with a recent study finding that 'incidents with a male victim were less likely to result in an arrest of a suspect than cases involving a female victim'^[2].
2. Court bias: While the judiciary is becoming more aware of male victimhood, unconscious bias can still influence outcomes.

However, the tide is slowly turning.

Recent case law has revealed a growing willingness by the courts to consider coercive control towards men in children and financial remedy proceedings. However, navigating this terrain requires a nuanced understanding of both the law and the lived realities of male victims.

Final thoughts: breaking the silence

Coercive control is not about gender – it’s about power. And while women are statistically more likely to be victims, men can and do suffer from this form of abuse.

The silence surrounding male victimhood only serves to perpetuate this problem, and so continued discussion of these issues is vital to ensure that this is effectively recognised. For legal professionals, this is particularly paramount when considering their male clients who may find themselves in such situations or who are unlikely to report this often unseen form of abuse.

Michal's article was published in Family Law Week, 4 August 2025, and can be found here.