Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Debate contribution by Ms Aoife Finnegan on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Aoife Finnegan

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5525166

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

A growing body of evidence, including the 2025 Research and Information Service (RaISe) briefing, lays bare the reality of how victims of domestic abuse are experiencing our family courts. It makes for deeply uncomfortable reading, because, while our courts are there to protect, or so we believe, the lived experience of many women and children is very different. We see consistent findings from RaISe, the 'Totally Invisible' report and the recent Criminal Justice Inspection (CJINI) work all pointing in the same direction and showing that, for far too many victims, abuse does not end; it evolves and, too often, continues through the systems that are meant to protect them. We have a system in which social services are often working to a threshold of what is considered to be "good enough": a child is fed; a child is clothed; there is a roof over their head. However, when it comes to the courts, particularly in private family court proceedings, anything less than perfect can be scrutinised, challenged and used against a protective parent. At the same time, a perpetrator can continue to bring forward allegation after allegation, even when those allegations have been found to be unfounded. There can be repeated allegations, repeated challenges and relentless pressure. That imbalance cannot be ignored. We also know, and the evidence now confirms it, that coercive control does not end when a relationship ends. Too often, it finds a new platform through the courts, and litigation becomes a tool of abuse, not in the interest of the child but as a means of maintaining control. We need to talk about what that looks like in practice. Women have come forward to say that, on a Monday, they are granted a 12-month non-molestation order protecting them from direct and indirect contact from their abuser, but, by the Wednesday, they are sitting just feet away from the same abuser, in a courtroom, and are expected to engage, respond and remain composed. They are then ordered to communicate through a court-mandated parenting app, which creates yet another channel of communication and control. That contradiction is stark, and it is happening. I will bring it back to what it feels like for a parent. We can talk about legislation, systems and processes, but this is about people. It is about a mother who is sitting in a courtroom in a state of absolute stress. Her heart is racing, her mind is trying to keep up and her body is reacting to trauma, because she is sitting just feet away from the person of whom she is deeply afraid, and she is expected to answer questions, stay composed and present perfectly. When she struggles and her voice quivers — when she becomes overwhelmed — it is not recognised as trauma. It is judged, questioned and sometimes even used against her, as if it is simply a way of her behaving, when, in reality, it is deep, deep fear. All the while, her child is everything to her — the most important thing in the world — but, from the moment that child was born, she knew that there was a risk that, through abuse, manipulation, lies and fear, that child could be used against her, because litigation can be misused. Even when the misuse is so clear and the pattern of behaviour so obvious, it is not treated as a crime, because, in the eyes of the law, the correct avenue — the court process — is being taken. She is left in a position where, technically, she is protected, but only by a court order, which can be broken and relies on the behaviour of someone who has already demonstrated that they do not recognise boundaries or respect authority. They never have, and they never will. She sits there completely alone, because the patterns of behaviour are not recognised, since the systems do not join up. There are still gaps in training, in understanding and in how coercive control is recognised across the system. What is happening? The fight for her life — the fight to protect herself and her child — is playing out in a courtroom while the person who caused the harm gets to sit and watch and take serious satisfaction from it. That cannot be what justice looks like. We also need to recognise that abuse does not stop at the adult victim. Manipulative behaviours are often directed at children, too — psychological abuse, emotional harm — and, even when a child court officer has identified that abuse, it is not always treated with the same weight or urgency as it would be in the social work system. Under the Children (NI) Order 1995, we are clear: where a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, there must be intervention. Emotional abuse is recognised as a primary category of harm, yet the reality of that threshold is not always being applied consistently in the family courts. We already have legislation in place. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 was a significant step forward, but legislation, on its own, is not enough, because we are now seeing the gaps between what was agreed in this Assembly and what the victims are experiencing on the ground. Protections are not being fully implemented and are not always accessible. Protection that cannot be accessed is not protection at all. The RaISe paper also highlights clear systemic issues, such as low uptake of legal aid waivers, complex application processes, barriers to access and a system that risks retraumatising those whom it is meant to protect. Therefore, we need to be honest with ourselves and accept that reform is required. That means better recognition of litigation abuse, stronger protections for victims in court settings, a more consistent trauma-informed approach across the system and a renewed focus on the voice, safety and well-being of the child. It also means ensuring that court processes cannot be used as a tool of coercive control. Finally, we need to ask ourselves this question: if victims are leaving our courts feeling retraumatised, children are not being adequately heard and perpetrators are able to continue patterns of control through legal processes, are we truly delivering justice or are we allowing harm to continue in a different form?

1,058 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification