Just in from Family Court: Father NEGLECTED His Children Because He Coercively Controlled their Mother

Family Court reaches groundbreaking conclusions using Dr Emma Katz's Children and Coercive Control Research

Welcome

A father who coercively controls a mother is neglecting the children they share. In June 2023 this was the conclusion reached in a New York City family court. The court in Kings County (Brooklyn) reached this decision in the matter of Ms. Taisha R. (the mother) and Mr. Ariel T. (the father).

This was a very welcome and groundbreaking conclusion.

To myself as an expert on coercive control, and to many coercive control victims-survivors, the harms caused by coercive controllers to their children are painfully obvious.

However, getting family courts, social services, the police and other agencies to understand these harms can be difficult to say the least.

The 3 Incorrect Assumptions vs. the 3 Correct Realizations

Responding services often make these 3 incorrect assumptions:

1. That domestic abuse is relevant to children only if children have witnessed one parent physically attacking the other.

2. That domestic abuse perpetrators count as dangerous parents for children only if the perpetrator is directly physically or sexually abusing the child.

3. That once a couple have separated, domestic abuse perpetrated by one of the parents is no longer relevant to decisions made on arrangements for the children — regardless of whether the perpetrator parent is waging a campaign of post-separation abuse, and whether the children are still afraid of him (and will always be).

What was so refreshing and unusual about the decision in Taisha R. (Ariel T.) case is that the court didn’t buy into these ways of thinking.

You can read the court’s full decision here. In place of the 3 incorrect assumptions, it made the 3 correct realizations:

1. Even though the children have not seen the father physically attack the mother, the father’s coercive control is still extremely serious.

2. A father does very substantial harm to the children if he subjects their mom to coercive control – amounting to neglect of the children – and this reflects extremely poorly on him as a parent.

3. Even post-separation, a father’s coercive control is not ‘in the past’ or ‘historic’: it is still very much relevant to parenting arrangements after the mom has separated from him.

The 3 Correct Realizations Are Found In My Research

In making its decision, the Kings County/Brooklyn court extensively named me and my 2016 article ‘Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control’.

This article can be downloaded here.

It was great seeing my research making this real world impact.

We are still light years away from the end goal of adult and child abuse survivors being served well by family courts worldwide. Family court outcomes for abuse survivor moms and children are often extremely negative.

However, the decision in this New York City case is a step in the right direction.

Analyzing the Court’s Decision

This is an incredibly important case. I have never before seen a family court decision that ‘gets it’ in quite the way that this one has.

However, the court’s decision takes the form of a single long narrative. It is not organised into simple bitesize themes.

What I aim to do in this blog, then, is spell out those themes in an easy, accessible way for you, the professional or personally-interested reader.

This blog will brief you on precisely:

• what the court found about this father’s coercive control.

• why the court decided that father’s treatment of the mother added up to him subjecting their children to neglect.

• what this means for understanding how coercive controllers harms their children.

Let’s take a deeper look at the case of Ms. Taisha R. (mother), Mr. Ariel T. (father) and their two shared children under the age of 3, referred to by the court as Aria T. and Arielle T.

What Is Coercive Control?

The court’s explanation of coercive control was based directly on my 2016 research publication (Katz, 2016). Coercive control is:

known to involve a range of tactics intended to intimidate, humiliate, degrade, exploit, isolate, and control. These include verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse, control of time, space, and movement, continual monitoring, stalking, physical violence, intimidation and threats of violence against the victim/survivor, their loved ones and property, rape, sexual coerciveness and control of pregnancy, financial abuse and the denial of resources, and isolation from sources of support.

The court also quoted my explanation of the devasting way coercive controllers shrink down and limit the lives and freedoms of victims-survivors:

Coercive control can have devastating impacts on victims/survivors. In addition to its well-documented effects on physical and mental health, [researchers] highlight that coercive control limits victims’/survivors’ space for action, that is their freedom to say and do things and to meet their own needs without worry or fear. As perpetrators microregulate their everyday behaviors, victims’/survivors’ options, choices, and ability to decide for themselves diminish. These constraints on their agency and voice often contribute to a profound disempowerment, loss of self, and loss of confidence in victims/survivors.

Here you can see how my 2016 article develops these insights.

Coercive Control Perpetration = Neglect of Children

The family court’s decision in the matter of Ms. Taisha R. (mother), Mr. Ariel T. (father) and their two children begins with a definition of neglect:

A child is neglected if his or her physical, mental, or emotional condition has been, or is in imminent danger of being impaired, as a result of the failure of his or her parent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof.

The decision then states that:

A pattern of domestic violence and intimidation perpetrated by a party is relevant to the Court’s analysis… When a child witnesses a perpetrating parent shower degrading, verbal abuse on the other parent, the child's mimicking of this behavior by repeating the insults to the victim parent is sufficient to show impairment of the child.

The word ‘impairment’ is important here.

Under the law, neglect takes place if the child has been, or is imminent danger of being, impaired by the behavior of their parent. This impairment of the child can be mental, emotional or physical.

In this case, the father was allegedly calling the mother a ‘bitch’ in front of their young children to the point where their two year old son was also calling the mother a ‘bitch’. The court recognised that this does amount to the father impairing the child mentally and/or emotionally, therefore neglecting the child.

Indeed, the court went further.

The father was perpetrating a sexist degrading of the mother — behaviour that was causing a young boy to call his mother a ‘bitch’. Minimisers of abuse might say that this is just words. However, the court wisely recognised that the father’s alleged behaviour was having far-reaching child neglect implications, including:

• ‘inhibiting the development of a positive mother–child attachment.’

• ‘undermining the child’s respect for his mother and his growing sense of self as a boy in relation to girls and women.’

The decision noted the ongoing nature of the harms:

• ‘As [the son] grows up, the implications of this learned behavior will continue to unfold, creating rifts in relationships that can only serve to further traumatize both the child and his mother.’

The court recognised that the father allegedly calling the mother a ‘bitch’ was not an isolated problem in this family.

Instead, its decision centred on a broader pattern of coercive control allegedly perpetrated by the father:-

• that there was ‘serious domestic violence manifested through Mr. T.’s exertion of power and control over Ms. R., with actual or imminent impairment of the children.’

• that ‘a petition alleging a coercive and controlling relationship can be sufficient to state a cause of action for neglect.’

• that a Family Court has a ‘responsibility to respond to the multitude of ways in which children can be impacted by parental behavior, and the moral imperative to exercise its jurisdiction as broadly as required to effectively respond to the needs of families and children.’

What the Court Recognized About the Coercive Control in This Case

In recognizing the coercive control allegedly perpetrated by Mr. T. against Ms. R., the court described it in the following terms:

Not allowing Ms. R. to leave the home, making accusations against her saying she sleeps with everybody… maintaining surveillance over her texts, e-mails, and phone calls… not allowing her to see her friends or family, taking her financial benefits, throwing away all her belongings, and confiscating all the children's vital documents… Without vital documents, Ms. R. is unable to even perform the basic function of enrolling her children in school… Without access to her own funds, she cannot purchase necessities for herself and the children, let alone the occasional “extras” that grease the parenting wheel with small children. Mr. T. speaks to Ms. R. in a demeaning manner which their two-year-old repeats. Mr. T. allegedly has threatened to take the children away from Ms. R. repeatedly if she does not listen to him. Mr. T. allegedly took all of Ms. R.’s clothing and forced her to wear his own clothing… prevent[ing] her from being an individual. Once the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) began investigating, Mr. T. accused the investigator of sleeping with Ms. T.. The petition also alleges an incident during which Mr. T. pulled on Ms. R.’s arm.

Critically, the court recognized the unequal power dynamics in the relationship, which in this case included age-related power imbalances, with Ms. R. only 25 years old and Mr. T. in his late 50s:

Based on the allegations in the petition, it appears the relationship between the parties at a minimum existed in 2017 when Ms. R. was a teenager with an infant from a prior relationship. The specter of a much-older man taking up a relationship with a vulnerable 18-year-old with a baby implies a significant power dynamic from the outset.

Analyzing the above statements, the alleged coercive control perpetrated by Mr. T. had the following specifics, according to the court:

• Controlling the time and movement of Ms. R., monitoring and isolating her; by (i) not allowing her to freely leave the home, by (ii) not allowing her to freely see her friends and family; and by (iii) maintaining surveillance over her texts, e-mails, and phone calls.

• Being emotionally and psychologically abusive towards Ms. R.; by (i) making continual, unfounded accusations of cheating; by (ii) speaking to Ms R. in a demeaning way; and by (iii) taking away her own clothes and making her wear his clothes. This control over clothing harmed Ms. R.’s dignity, individuality and self-expression.

• Using economic abuse against Ms. R.; by (i) taking Ms. R.’s belongings from her; by (ii) taking her benefits income from her, leaving her unable to provide basic essentials for her children or herself, and making her completely dependent on Mr. T. to meet her own and the children’s needs; and by (iii) taking the children’s vital documents, leaving Ms R. powerless to undertake vital tasks such as enrolling the children in school.

• Attacking Ms. R.’s motherhood; by (i) encouraging the children to see her in a degraded way; by (ii) not giving her the means to buy the children things they might want; and (iii) by using the threat of taking the children away to try to compel her to behave in a continually obedient manner.

• Being physically abusive against Ms. R. by pulling at her arm. In cases of coercive control, physically aggressive acts such as pushing or grabbing can be very harmful. Such acts from a coercive control perpetrator signal to a victim-survivor that the perpetrator is willing and able to physically hurt them. This creates a chilling effect, reducing the victim’s-survivor’s general freedom and liberty.

What Makes the Court’s Recognition of the Coercive Control In This Case So Important

Perpetrators’ entrapment of their targets has grave impacts on personal freedom. Coercive control severely limits a victim’s-survivor’s life by taking away their liberty.

The court recognized this:

‘Scholars compare the circumstances of victims of coercive control to that of prisoners-of-war, hostages, and other “capture crimes”’

It is heartening to see this quote in the court’s decision.

This is not a ‘bad marriage’ — the harms that perpetrators cause to their targets are on a level with the harms experienced by a hostage or a prisoner-of-war.

The court’s decision goes on to state that:

• The seriousness of the abuse is not solely defined by physical aggression; psychological abuse by the perpetrator counts just as much.

• Coercive control must not be ignored in cases where the court is deciding on the risks of harm to children and their best interests.

See the statement below from the court’s decision:

Courts have begun to recognize the non-physical aspects of domestic violence and to provide relief to survivors of coercive and controlling relationships just as if they had experienced physical injury… the same relief is due in cases of psychological aggression as in those of physical aggression because the impact can be just as severe… Courts tasked with adjudicating questions concerning the risks of harm to children and their best interests must not ignore the phenomenon of coercive control in intimate relationships. In several states, they are required by law to attend to emotional abuse and non-physical attributes of domestic violence.

This statement is exceedingly welcome.

The Court Recognized That Children Are Direct Victims of Domestic Violence

The court’s decision made another groundbreaking move. It recognized that children are not only witnesses of domestic violence, but direct victims too:

Insistence that domestic violence arises only though documented incidents of physicality ignores the multitude of non-physical acts of domination that can occur in relationship, resulting in a misunderstanding of how that relationship is experienced by all members of the household, including the children… Research has shown that children are not only witnesses to domestic violence, but actual victims who experience the same dynamics in the home. Children are not only fully aware of the shifted dynamics in their home environment, but also adapt their behaviors in the home to manage and mitigate further abuse… Residing in this tense environment impacts the children significantly in their day-to-day life, from the constant fear permeating the home… to the changed dynamics in the household.

The court quoted my 2016 research (which again you can download here) to spell out some of the ways that perpetrators’ coercive control harms children:

In a home marked by coercive control, it is not just the survivor-parent but the child who is isolated from family, friends, and community support structures. In fact, research has shown that the deleterious effects of coercive control in the home contribute to children’s emotional and behavioral struggles as much as, or even more than, experiencing physical violence perpetrated in the home… Isolation from the friends and family who would provide multiple benefits and positive experiences for the children detracts from the children’s ability to build social skills and eliminates their opportunity to observe and learn what non-abusive relationships are.

The court’s statement, above, recognizes that:

• Coercive controllers’ actions cause their children to become isolated from family, friends, and community support structures.

• This in turn damages children’s development in multiple ways, harming their social skills and depriving them of opportunities to learn what non-abusive relationships are like.

These are vital issues for many child victims that are rarely talked about.

However, the court’s statement doesn’t stop there. It:

• details the further ways in which the coercive control allegedly perpetrated by Mr. T. against Ms. R. is harmful to the children.

• recognizes how Mr. T. shows a ‘significant lack of parental judgment’ and a ‘disregard for the well-being of the children’.

See the court’s statement below:

Utilizing the children to further exert power and control over Ms. R. creates a substantial risk of harm to not only Ms. R., but the children as well. As alleged, Mr. T.’ actions and choice to use the children as a means of control over Ms. R. show a disregard for the well-being of the children that raises serious concern regarding his parental judgment and the effect his decisions have on the children's mental and emotional state. In addition to the significant lack of parental judgment here, this behavior teaches the children unhealthy relationship dynamics and places them directly in between their parents.

This realization is vital. It helps to combat the dominant abuse-minimising narrative that a man can abuse the mother of his children but still be a good enough father for those children.

The Court Recognized the Need to Blame the Perpetrator Not the Victim-Survivor Parent

All to often, coercive control victim-survivor mothers are blamed for not being able to fully meet their parenting responsibilities. The coercively controlling father’s role in causing the whole situation through his decision to abuse the mother is rarely considered.

Not here. The court recognized that:

The father’s coercive control was stopping the mother from being an adequate mother, and this is the father’s responsibility.

The court decision laid the blame for the mother’s compromised care of the children firmly at the feet of the allegedly coercively controlling father. He is named as the one ‘inhibiting’ the mother from caring for the children:

From the power and control allegedly exerted in this case, it can reasonably be inferred that Mr. T. inhibits Ms. R.’s own ability to provide a minimum degree of care for the children… Crippling Ms. R.’s mental and emotional state impacts her ability to care for the children in a healthy manner.

Furthermore, the court notes that it is harmful for the children to have a mother who is being mentally and emotionally destroyed:

The children are present every day and can observe their mother being prevented from being an individual. This exposes the children to inequities in the household that have long lasting psychological impacts.

As the court decision stated, the father’s choice to keep abusing the mother despite the harms to the children suggests his disregard for the children’s welfare and highlights his extremely poor parenting judgement.

The Court Recognized That Coercive Control From Fathers Is Child Neglect

Towards the end of the court’s decision, attention is again turned to how a father who chooses to use coercive control is an ‘unreasonable’, ‘imprudent’, ‘psychologically abusive’ parent who is neglecting his children. As the court decision states:

Using derogatory language that the children repeat, using the children as tools to further control their mother, using isolating tactics that leave children feeling alone and unsupported, and unreasonably creating a tense home environment is not the way a reasonable and prudent parent would care for a child… [Coercive control causes] constant, daily, and hidden harms… Failing to distinguish this type of psychological abuse from the “undesirable but not neglectful” scenarios would mean that Family Court’s protection would not be extended to children who are impaired by non-physical forms of domestic violence. This would be an intolerable result in the 21st century.

A coercively controlling father is not just carrying out undesirable behaviour, he is carrying out neglectful behaviour. As the court suggests:

Courts that ignore this are producing results that are intolerable in the 21st century.

Next Steps

The court decision outlined above is not the end result of this case. It’s just a step in the process. We don’t yet know what the family court will officially ‘find’ about the allegations in this case or what the court will decide about the role of Mr. T. in Ms. R.’s and the children’s future lives.

I’m sure you will all join me in wishing Ms R. and her children:

• a safe outcome to their case

• secure and free futures in which they can thrive.

Goodbye for now

I will be back soon for more installments of Decoding Coercive Control with Dr Emma Katz.