Financial abuse

Coercive control is the pattern of abuse made manifest: a sustained course of conduct that uses control over money, mobility, communication, reproduction, and the microregulation of daily life to deprive a woman of liberty. Financial abuse is both a tactic of abuse and the substrate on which the rest of his coercive tactics take root.

Money is the medium through which every other form of coercive control becomes operational. Control of money becomes control of housing, food, mobility, work, time, credit, contact with services, and ultimately the material possibility of leaving. When the abuser restricts her access to her earnings, her credit, her assets, and her independent financial standing, every other form of coercive conduct gains traction. His utter domination of her life persists because she has no economic means to leave his violence, no independent income to sustain a life beyond his isolation, and no material means to refuse his microregulation.

This is why financial abuse is the form of coercive control that survives the system intervening. Shared bank accounts, joint debt, asset coercion already executed, years of restricted work history, and reproductive coercion that diverted earning years into unpaid caregiving persist. Credit reports often recover last of all, holding the survivor back even after she has done the herculean work of righting her own mental health. The control those financial structures enable persists into family court, custody disputes, housing instability, lasting the months and years after the relationship has formally ended.

---

What financial abuse looks like

Financial abuse has its own trail of breadcrumbs in pattern and evidence. You can recognize the pattern when you know what to look for, and the institutional failure to look for it is the structural condition that allows the abuse to continue after our system of justice has tried other interventions and preventative tools.

Specific patterns include:

• Post-separation financial control through joint accounts, shared assets, and ongoing financial entanglement that the legal separation does not address.
• Asset coercion—the perpetrator forces transfers, hides assets, and encumbers shared property in ways the survivor cannot recover from.
• Weaponized credit—the abuser opens accounts in the survivor's name, defaults on shared obligations to destroy her credit, and uses ruined credit to maintain control of her housing and employment.
• Litigation abuse as a financial control vector—repeated motions, custody-related filings, and prolonged proceedings that drain the survivor's resources while consuming her time.
• Reproductive coercion with financial dimensions—the abuser turns pregnancy and childcare costs into control instruments.

Each of these patterns carries its own evidentiary signature. Responders trained to recognize only bruises, broken bones, and the acute incidents that dominate domestic violence intake miss them entirely.

---

The lethality connection

Coercive control predicts femicide more reliably than the frequency or severity of physical violence alone. Stark's work in Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life, Johnson's typology of intimate terrorism, Campbell's Lethality Assessment Protocol, and Myhill and Hohl's empirical work on coercive control and risk assessment have established this across two decades. Coercive control patterns appear in nearly every intimate partner femicide, including cases without prior documented physical violence. Financial abuse runs alongside the rest of these lethality indicators and aspects of coercive control, both as a tactic of abuse itself and as its unwanted legacy.

Financial precarity correlates with the survivor's diminished capacity to leave safely. Weaponized custody litigation correlates with escalation. The combination of financial entanglement and firearm access in the household is one of the highest-risk configurations in the lethality literature.

Naming financial abuse correctly—as coercive control rather than as a property dispute, a custody dispute, or a “complicated divorce”—is the precondition for connecting these dots.

---

The systems-response gap

The systems-response side—how law enforcement, prosecutors, judicial officers, civil legal aid attorneys, and multi-disciplinary case teams recognize, investigate, document, and respond to financial abuse—remains the most underdeveloped piece of the intervention chain. Specialized survivor-side organizations have built sophisticated bodies of work on financial abuse: FreeFrom alone has shifted economic-recovery options for over five million survivors through its compensation tools, entrepreneurship cohorts, and policy work. The survivor side has the playbook.

What does not yet exist at scale is the systems-response training that closes the loop on the other side of the case. Law enforcement officers receive minimal financial abuse training in academy. Prosecutorial offices generally do not run dedicated financial abuse case strategy. Judicial officers—especially family court bench officers—encounter financial coercion routinely in their dockets without a framework for recognizing it as part of the same harm pattern as physical violence.

This gap is the work I am building toward at scale.

---

The statute, and what the UK has learned

Washington statute already names coercive control. Chapter 7.105 of the Revised Code of Washington—the consolidated civil protection orders framework that took effect in 2022—defines coercive control as a pattern of behavior used to cause another person to suffer physical, emotional, or psychological harm, and lists financial control, isolation, deprivation of basic necessities, and intimidation among its constituent forms. Financial abuse appears in the statute. Under 7.105, statute recognizes coercive control as grounds for a civil protection order.

This is the right statutory foundation for the United States, on which states can and ought to add laws addressing such topics as fraudulent debt and survivor credit scores. The civil protection order framework gives the survivor direct standing to seek relief, holds a lower evidentiary burden than criminal prosecution requires, and avoids the structural problems that follow from making prosecutors and police the front line on a course-of-conduct offense. The effectiveness of the protection order relies upon swift enforcement of the order when the abuser inevitably violates it.

The work now is implementation: training judges, civil legal aid attorneys, court advocates, and family court bench officers to recognize coercive control as the statute defines it and to grant the orders the statute already authorizes. Without that institutional muscle, even the ideal statute remains aspirational.

The United Kingdom's experience is instructive as a cautionary record. The UK criminalized coercive control under the Serious Crime Act of 2015. A decade of implementation has documented serious pitfalls that follow from the criminal-side approach—pitfalls any US jurisdiction now tempted to expand toward criminalization should study before doing so. In my collaboration with UK counterparts in political strategy—and with colleagues working in prosecution, judicial training, and police reform—we have surfaced several recurring patterns:

• Building pattern evidence is harder than building cases around incidents. Police and prosecutors trained to investigate single events struggle to construct a course-of-conduct case. Financial abuse, which appears as documentary evidence accumulated over months and years rather than as a single visible act, suffers from this most acutely.
• Counter-allegation by perpetrators recasts the case. This is DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a predictable pattern abusers employ rather than an improvised response in the moment. Perpetrators allege the survivor is the one exerting coercive control. Police misidentify the primary aggressor. Officers arrest the woman under the same statute meant to protect her. The financial abuse context is particularly vulnerable to this dynamic, because both parties can point at the bank account.
• Criminal recognition does not translate to family court recognition. UK practitioners have repeatedly observed that the criminal system's acknowledgment of coercive control as a course of conduct has not translated into how family courts adjudicate custody, finances, and access. Perpetrators shift strategy from the criminal forum into the civil forum, where the category remains less operationalized. Washington's statute sits in the civil protection order chapter rather than the criminal code—a different doctrinal posture from the UK frame, but the same risk applies: recognition in one forum without parallel literacy in another creates an arbitrage the perpetrator exploits.
• Sensitivity to conviction rates filters the harder cases out of the system. Cases without traditional violence evidence are harder to convict, so prosecutors hesitate to bring them. Cases without bruises become cases without charges. Financial abuse cases, which often present without physical violence, are the ones most often filtered out by this dynamic.

Washington has a strong statutory foundation to protect survivors and hold perpetrators accountable: a perpetrator's violation of a protection order is nearly certain. The UK has the implementation record that shows what can go wrong when criminal prosecution becomes the lever for addressing coercive control. The work in the US—and the work I take on with judicial training organizations, civil legal aid programs, court advocates, family court reform efforts, and any institution serious about operationalizing what 7.105 already says—is to build the implementation infrastructure that lets a strong civil statute reach the families it was written to protect. Expanding the statute through criminalization carries pitfalls the UK has spent a decade documenting.

---

The capital side

For most of the modern era, philanthropy has maintained a firewall between the giving side of the house and the investment side—a common practice I became curious about while working in philanthropy in the 00s. The grant-making team pursued mission. The endowment investment team pursued financial return. Each operated as if the other's choices were unrelated to the work.

That firewall is beginning to crack. Foundations are beginning to see that the way they invest their capital is itself a mission instrument. The same shift is underway in the high net worth investor world, where investors increasingly examine their allocations against the impact they say they want.

This shift opens a strategic opportunity on financial abuse. Survivors leaving coercive relationships face a wealth gap that the systems response, on its own, cannot close: ruined credit, weaponized debt, the asset coercion record that follows them into housing, lending, and employment decisions. The intervention chain that begins with a recognized pattern at the teller window ends, eventually, at the question of whether the survivor can buy a home, capitalize a business, or have enough assets to rebuild her life. The capital that answers those questions can come from foundation impact investing portfolios, from high net worth allocations aligned to mission, and from community development financial institutions willing to underwrite around the credit destruction financial abuse leaves behind.

Community development financial institutions, in particular, hold a structural position uniquely suited to this work. Their members and borrowers are disproportionately women. Their mission infrastructure already takes a gender equity lens seriously. Their loan funds are the precise instrument through which mission-aligned capital reaches the survivor's house, business, or balance sheet—growing the lender's capital and the survivor's at the same time.

The first step is literacy. Donors and banking institutions cannot deploy capital intelligently against a harm they do not yet recognize. The coercive control context, and the specific patterns of financial abuse that operate within it, is the precondition for designing the products that move capital toward survivor recovery.

---

The broader argument

Financial abuse is one specific manifestation of the broader coercive control architecture. The pattern is recognizable. The institutional category does not yet name it correctly. What becomes actionable depends on what the institutional category recognizes.

A judge who does not recognize financial coercion in a custody filing will adjudicate the filing as a custody matter. A prosecutor who does not recognize litigation abuse will treat it as zealous representation. A law enforcement officer who does not recognize weaponized credit will tell the survivor it is a civil matter.

---

FreeFrom maintains a state-by-state policy scorecard on survivor financial security at freefrom.org. It is the clearest single resource for understanding where any given state stands and which survivor-finance reforms are in motion. Readers serious about this work should know where their own state appears on that map.

Closing the systems-response gap on financial abuse is the work I take on with rural agencies, urban prosecutors' offices, judicial training organizations, and any institution serious about addressing the form of coercive control most likely to keep killing women after every other intervention has failed.

---

Selected sources

• Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the Scale of Economic Abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 563–588.
• Bishop, C., & Bettinson, V. (2018). Evidencing domestic violence, including behaviour that falls under the new offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour.” International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 22(1), 3–29.
• Brennan, I. R., & Myhill, A. (2022). Coercive control: Patterns in crimes, arrests and outcomes for a new domestic abuse offence. British Journal of Criminology, 62(2), 468–483.
• Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 653–674.
• FreeFrom. Survivor financial security research, the compensation tool, and the state-by-state survivor financial security policy scorecard. freefrom.org
• Freyd, J. J. (1997). Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 22–32. (Origination of the DARVO framework: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.)
• Hahn, S. A., & Postmus, J. L. (2014). Economic empowerment of impoverished IPV survivors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(2), 79–93.
• Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Northeastern University Press.
• Myhill, A., & Hohl, K. (2019). The “golden thread”: Coercive control and risk assessment for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(21–22), 4477–4497.
• Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S.-B., McMahon, S., Murshid, N. S., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430.
• Sharp-Jeffs, N. (2015). Money matters: Research into the extent and nature of financial abuse within intimate relationships in the UK. The Co-operative Bank / Refuge.
• Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press.
• Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 7–28.
• Washington Revised Code Chapter 7.105 (effective 2022). Civil protection orders, including the statutory definition of coercive control.

---

Engagement and partnership inquiries: inquiries@haliruna.com.