Disclaimer: This article is for educational and awareness purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Domestic abuse experiences vary widely. Anyone experiencing abuse should seek support from qualified professionals or emergency services where there is immediate danger.
An essential explanation for legal professionals, courts, and decision-makers
Domestic violence is often misunderstood in legal settings. One of the most persistent and damaging myths is the question: “Why didn’t they just leave?”
This question assumes that leaving is a single, rational decision made in isolation. In reality, domestic abuse is a gradual, cumulative process that systematically erodes a person’s autonomy, confidence, safety, and perceived options.
For courts to deliver fair outcomes, it is vital to understand why staying is often the result of coercion, fear, dependency, and survival, not consent or weakness.
Abuse Rarely Starts With Violence
Domestic abuse typically begins long before the first act of physical violence. It often starts subtly and escalates over time:
- Constant criticism disguised as “jokes.”
- Monitoring behaviour and communications
- Undermining confidence and independence
- Isolating the victim from friends, family, and work
- Creating emotional dependency
By the time physical violence occurs, the victim’s self-esteem and sense of reality may already be severely damaged.
Understanding the Psychological Trap
Imagine being in a relationship where, over the course of a year, the person you love slowly chips away at your confidence. You are told, subtly at first, that you are too sensitive, not clever enough, not attractive enough, or incapable of managing life on your own.
When the first violent incident happens, you are no longer the same person you were at the start of the relationship.
Your thoughts may sound like this:
- “Maybe I provoked it.”
- “He does love me, he’s just under stress.”
- “He’s apologising and crying; he feels terrible.”
- “I’m pregnant now, how would I cope alone?”
- “I don’t have a career, childcare, or savings.”
- “I love his family, they’ve been kind to me.”
- “We have plans coming up; maybe things will improve.”
This is not denial, it is survival thinking.
When self-worth has been eroded gradually, recognising abuse, let alone escaping it, becomes profoundly difficult.
The Role of Coercive Control
Coercive control is now recognised in law because abuse is not only about violence — it is about power.
Common tactics include:
- Total control over finances and bank accounts
- Preventing the victim from working or studying
- Threats of harm to children, pets, neighbours, or family
- Blackmail using private information or images
- Monitoring phones, emails, and movements
- Threats of false allegations or legal retaliation
Leaving under these conditions is dangerous, not simple.
When Children Are Involved
Abuse does not exist in a vacuum.
A child raised in an abusive household may begin to mirror the abuser’s behaviour, sometimes out of fear, sometimes as learned conduct.
A victim may face:
- A child repeating insults used by the abuser
- Fear that the child will report attempts to seek help
- Threats that the abuser will turn the child against them
This creates a powerful psychological barrier:
“If I leave, I may lose my child, or make things worse.”
Financial Entrapment and Housing Barriers
Many victims are financially trapped:
- The abuser controls all income and benefits
- The victim has no access to savings or credit
- Legal fees are unaffordable
- The family home may be in the victim’s name, yet the perpetrator refuses to leave
In such cases, leaving may mean homelessness, legal battles, or prolonged exposure to danger.
Why Leaving Is Often the Most Dangerous Time
Statistically, the risk of serious harm or homicide increases when a victim attempts to leave.
Abusers may escalate:
- Violence
- Stalking
- Threats to others
- Harassment through the legal system
Fear is not irrational; it is evidence-based.
What Victims Can Do to Break Free (When Safe to Do So)
Every situation is different, but potential steps include:
- Confide safely in a trusted person or specialist service
- Document abuse discreetly (dates, incidents, photos where safe)
- Seek legal advice from domestic-abuse-aware solicitors
- Create a safety plan, including emergency contacts
- Secure important documents (ID, birth certificates, bank details)
- Open a private bank account if possible
- Contact specialist domestic abuse organisations
- Use legal protections such as non-molestation or occupation orders
- Do not confront the abuser alone about leaving
- Prioritise safety over speed — leaving is a process, not a moment
A Message for the Courts
If you have never experienced the systematic erosion of your self-worth, freedom, and safety, be grateful, but do not judge.
Staying is often not a choice.
It is the outcome of fear, conditioning, isolation, and survival under coercive control.
Justice requires understanding the context, not just the outcome.
Lived Experience Context (Anonymised Professional Narrative)
This guidance is informed by the survivor experience of domestic abuse and coercive control.
In this case, the abuse did not begin with violence. It began with trust.
The perpetrator was initially charming, attentive, and outwardly respectable. Others perceived him as a perfect gentleman, polite, engaging, and well-liked outside the home. Early access to the survivor’s property was granted in good faith, including possession of a key so that he could let himself in while she was working. At that stage, there was no indication of danger.
The abuse began when boundaries were asserted.
When the survivor declined expectations that she would provide domestic labour, such as cooking or accommodating his attempts to move in, the behaviour shifted. Control replaced charm. Respect turned into intimidation.
The perpetrator did not have access to the survivor’s finances. Instead, dominance was exerted through property destruction and intimidation. Personal belongings were deliberately damaged. On one occasion, water was poured over a laptop, a clear symbolic act intended to communicate: “I can destroy what matters to you.”
This was not impulsive anger. It was a calculated demonstration of power.
Threats, Fear, and the Reality of Risk
As the survivor attempted to resist and disengage, the abuse escalated to explicit threats of extreme violence.
The perpetrator threatened that if the police were contacted, the survivor’s home would be petrol-bombed. He further stated that even if arrested, he would arrange for someone else to carry out the attack. These threats were made credible by his known associations with dangerous individuals.
- At this stage, leaving was not a simple option.
- Contacting authorities carried a perceived risk of retaliation, escalation, and serious harm.
- This is a critical point for courts to understand:
- Fear-based compliance and silence can be rational survival strategies.
Exit Strategy: Disengagement, Not Confrontation
Ultimately, the survivor escaped not through confrontation, but through complete disengagement.
She ceased all communication. She did not respond. She did not challenge. She behaved as though the perpetrator no longer existed, effectively removing the emotional reaction and attention that fuelled the abuse.
This approach, sometimes described by survivors as “starving the fire of oxygen”, may not be safe or appropriate in every case. However, in this instance, it resulted in the perpetrator leaving the country and the abuse ceasing.
All social media connections were blocked, including associates, friends, and family members. This was done not out of paranoia, but as a protective safety measure.
Post-Separation Trauma and Ongoing Fear
The end of the relationship did not mark the end of harm.
The survivor continues to live with trauma. Hypervigilance remains. She reports persistent fear and heightened awareness of her surroundings. On New Year’s Eve, a stone was thrown at her window. Whether connected or not, the fear response was real. She did not feel safe enough to investigate.
This illustrates a vital reality often overlooked in court:
Survivors may remain fearful long after the abuser is gone.
The psychological impact does not disappear when the relationship ends. Trauma embeds itself in memory, behaviour, and perception of safety.
Key Judicial Learning Points
This experience demonstrates that:
- Abuse can begin after trust is established
- Charm and public respectability do not negate private violence
- Boundary-setting can trigger escalation
- Financial control is not the only method of dominance
- Threats alone can be sufficient to prevent reporting
- Disengagement may be a survival tactic
- Post-separation abuse and fear are real and enduring
Further Reading & Resources
- (19) Post | LinkedIn
- https://disabledentrepreneur.uk/category/domestic-violence/
- https://disabledentrepreneur.uk/domestic-violence-escape-plan/
- Home : Welsh Women’s Aid
- Domestic abuse
- Getting help for domestic violence and abuse – NHS
- Domestic abuse | GOV.WALES
- Support organisations for victims of domestic violence | South Wales Police
- Domestic Violence – Rise Cardiff
- What is Domestic abuse? | The Crown Prosecution Service
- Domestic abuse – Victim Support
- Domestic Violence Support | National Domestic Violence Hotline
- Domestic Abuse: Types, Causes, and Impact
- Violence against women
- Domestic Violence & Abuse · Emergency Injunction Service
- Government publishes landmark domestic abuse bill – GOV.UK
- Trauma Trial Experts – Bringing Trauma Expertise to the Courtroom (USA)
www.first4lawyers.com
Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.
