On Monday July 6th the House of Commons debated once again the Domestic Abuse Bill, although it was hoped that Parental Alienation would be part of it, that is not the case, but there are some very interesting parts in the draft guidance, overarching documents, on Coercive Control.
For the first time we see that preventing a relationship with grandparents is included, the bill itself, will now move on to the next stage and pass through the House of Lords.
48.Examples of controlling or coercive behaviour include:
• Controlling or monitoring the victim’s daily activities, including making them account for their time, dictating what they can wear, when they can eat;
• Isolating the victim from family and friends, intercepting messages or phone calls or refusing to interpret;
• Intentional undermining of the victim’s role as a partner, spouse or parent;
• Preventing the victim from taking medication or over-medicating them, or preventing the victim from accessing health or social care (especially relevant for victims with disabilities or long-term health conditions);
• Using substances to control a partner through dependency;
• Using children to control their partner, e.g. threatening to take the children away or manipulating professionals to increase the risk of children being removed into care;
Parental alienation, including preventing children from spending time with one parent or grandparents, from visiting friends’ houses and from participating in extracurricular activities;
• Threats to expose sensitive information (e.g. sexual activity) or make false allegations to family members, religious or local community including via photos or the internet;
• Preventing the victim from learning a language or making friends outside of their ethnic/ or cultural background;
• Threatening precarious immigration status against the victim, withholding documents, and giving false information to a victim about their visa or visa application;
• Threats of institutionalisation (particularly for disabled or elderly victims); and
Economic abuse (see paragraph 51).
What we need to see this tested in the courts.
