Assessment of coercive control in custody evaluations and its implications for forensic psychologists

Psychologists, especially those practicing in the forensic arena, are often challenged when they are provided a vague legal concept and then asked to measure those concepts in a way that may have significant impact and effects for individuals and their families. In the family law arena, the concept of coercive control has such potential ramifications for parents and their children. Depending on how this issue is defined and measured, different interpretations about parenting time and decision-making can be made in child custody cases.

Typically, the legislative law provides a broad conceptualization without consideration of how it may be assessed and measured. Coercive control can be a significant factor in domestic violence standards, and these standards are applied when decisions are made regarding parenting plans. In Colorado, for example, coercive control is given a sweeping description as “a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse that seeks to harm, punish, or frighten an individual.” Further, coercive control involves a pattern of behavior that takes away an individual’s liberty or freedom, and strips away the individual’s sense of self, including the person’s body integrity and rights. Coercive control isolates the person from support, causes a sense of loss of independence, and restricts the individual’s everyday behavior. 

Importantly, the Colorado statute includes a phrase of “on a regular basis”, which seems to eliminate a single incident. In Colorado and other jurisdictions, coercive control can be a significant factor in domestic violence standards, which have direct implications for parenting time and decision-making in a parenting plan. Moreover, a finding of domestic violence may preclude the awarding of joint decision-making despite the objections of the victim parent who seeks sole decision-making authority.

With such important effects, it would appear that a universally accepted and operational definition of coercive control is needed. However, as pointed out in a recent review article by Raghaven and Doychak (2025), “Widespread adoption and consistent practice has been hampered by a lack of clear operational definitions and correspondingly, easily available interview assessment tools that capture this complex and multifaceted abuse dynamic.” This article further describes an attempt to validate a brief, comprehensive interview format with clear operational definitions of coercive control.

While this research holds promise, there remains an absence of a universally accepted assessment method. Therefore, it becomes incumbent on the forensic psychologist practicing in this area to rely on basic concepts learned in research studies to evaluate assessment methods by examining their construct validity, statistical reliability and predictability. Foremost is the forensic ethical guideline of limiting interpretation and opinions within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty.

   Moreover, it is important to understand that there may be varying definitions of intimate partner violence, domestic violence, and coercive control in different states. It is incumbent on the psychologist to understand precisely those distinctions in the jurisdiction in which they are practicing. For example, California and Connecticut explicitly allow courts to consider coercive control as a form of domestic violence for restraining orders and custody matters. In Colorado, the courts are required to give strong consideration to a child’s safety and preferences when allegations of coercive control are made. Massachusetts expanded protection orders to specifically include victims of coercive control. This lack of uniformity increases the challenge in the establishment of a universally accepted assessment method. As example, finding that a partner has been controlling and even abusive may not necessarily support the presence of coercive control. Also, it is important to manage presumptive biases, such as only males can act in a coercively controlling manner.

Given these dilemmas, how then can a psychologist approach a case in which allegations of coercive control are made? Forensic guidelines will encourage the presence of a comprehensive evaluation utilizing multiple methods including comprehensive interviews, relevant psychological and parenting testing, review of relevant documents from legal and psychological sources, and collateral personal and professional references. For example, an accusation by a party in a conflicted relationship may serve as a basis for granting a temporary protection order. However, such an accusation without adequate evidence is unlikely to result in sustaining a permanent protection order. Standards of proof vary in legal context. While conviction on a criminal matter requires a finding of beyond a reasonable doubt, other standards such as clear and convincing or preponderance of evidence may apply in cases. Understanding the standard of proof may weigh heavily on the responsibility of the forensic evaluator being asked to provide a psychological opinion about coercive control.

The forensic psychologist should consider the sufficiency of an allegation as the primary evidence to establish the presence of coercive control. For illustration, an allegation of coercive control might involve a situation in which a parent has self-regulation issues, which have been addressed substantially in therapy. The other parent may have a history of anxiety disorder, which may cause an emotional reaction even to raised voices. The anxious parent might then be highly reactive to loudness and result in feeling threatened or intimidated. Considering this complex dynamic, were either of these parents engaging in coercive controlling behaviors which warrant restrictions on parenting time or decision-making? Or were both displaying signs of their past life experiences and reacting only to their situational conflicts? What data would be necessary to obtain? How should the impasse of mutual conflict be evaluated and constructively resolved?

Data analysis should include elements of convergent validity wherein confirmation by other data is used to assess the accuracy and authenticity of findings and opinions. The forensic psychologist might benefit in complex cases from having reliable instruments and decision models. Moreover, the importance of establishing valid and reliable measures of psychological concepts such as coercive control encourages the likelihood that future researchers and practitioners will evolve more standardized and statistically supported measures in this area.

Many evaluations in this area are turning toward the use of checklists which are often influenced by the bias of the responder. Such checklists may alter the evaluation from mere speculation to subjective evidence upon which to base opinions and recommendations. Others may turn to evaluation tools, such as tests like the Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory or the Conflict Tactics Scale – Second Edition. However, such instruments typically rely on self-report by the person being evaluated. Others may consider use of collateral data, such as arrest records or statements by collateral references. Except for formal conviction records, the evaluator may again be faced with perceptions and opinions that are not valid behavioral data.

Measurement of coercive control has not yet been fully established. Many research projects on this concept have relied on independent ratings of untrained raters. While this approach may provide a valuable attempt to construct measures, there is no specific assessment method which has reached complete acceptance as valid and reliable.

What then might be the judicious path for the forensic evaluator in cases in which coercive control is alleged? The following areas of inspection, while not conclusive, may provide insight and give direction for the evaluator. Behavioral examples of coercive control are cited, which must demonstrate a pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents (cf. Chadwick and Sloan, 2024):

1. Financial and economic abuse – restricted access to bank accounts, credit cards, cash; coerced debt such as forcing a partner to take out loans or sabotaging credit; career sabotage such as preventing a partner from working or attending school; or withholding necessities such as controlling funds needed for basic essentials, like food or clothing.
2. Surveillance and technology abuse – monitoring movements such as checking location excessively, using GPS tracking on vehicles, or installing spyware on devices; digital control such as demanding passwords for social media or monitoring digital communications; microregulation including regulating daily routines such as sleep patterns or clothing selection.
3. Isolation and social control – interpersonal isolation such as controlling the partners interactions or alienating them from friends and family; limiting communication by intercepting phone calls or messages to prevent partner’s access to outside support; reputational damage such as making false reports to police, social services, or damaging the partners reputation in their community.
4. Litigation and legal harassment – engaging in abusive litigation by filing repeated and meritless Court motions to cause distress or financial drain; threatening to use the legal system to “take the children away” if the partner does not comply with demands; withholding or destroying vital documents like passports or immigration papers.
5. Emotional and psychological manipulation – gas lighting by systematically distorting reality to make the partner doubt their own perceptions or sanity; repeatedly engaging in humiliating behavior such as name-calling, belittling, or demeaning the partner, particularly in front of children or others; making threats against others such as threatening to harm or kill pets, children, or other family members to compel obedience.

It is the responsibility of the evaluator to inform the trier of fact regarding limitations that might exist about the assessment data, or the conclusions and opinions drawn from that data. As in many instances regarding psychological concepts, it is ultimately the judge or jury who will render a legal opinion in such cases.