The Epidemic of Post-Separation Abuse in Family Court

Intimate partner violence (IPV) casts a wide and devastating shadow, affecting countless lives across all communities. In the U.S., one in three women experiences IPV in her lifetime, and IPV is a leading cause of death for women of reproductive age (Campbell et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2022). This alarming reality establishes IPV as a widespread public health crisis, with lasting impacts on families.

Leaving an abusive relationship is often assumed to end IPV, yet extensive research shows that separation can actually heighten the risk of fatal outcomes, escalate or prolong IPV, and, in some cases, even trigger IPV for the first time (Rezey, 2020). For many survivors, the abuse doesn’t end when the relationship ends — it often continues long after they’ve left their abuser. Known as “post-separation abuse,” this ongoing mistreatment involves tactics designed to control and intimidate the former partner, which leaves survivors vulnerable and frequently unprotected within the family court system.

A 2010 report on IPV based on the National Crime Victimization Survey in the U.S. found that IPV rates were 30 times higher for separated women and 9 times higher for divorced women. Mothers who experience IPV encounter substantial obstacles to their safety after separation, particularly as they must continue to manage co-parenting agreements within the family court system. Many women report that when they file for divorce, the abuse they have been enduring — and are trying to end — actually intensifies.

Post-separation abuse can be especially damaging, often extending beyond individual relationships to encompass external systems, including legal and financial entities. This complicates victims’ ability to fully escape their abuser’s control. The ongoing nature of this abuse profoundly impacts survivors’ mental health and safety. This highlights the urgent need for greater awareness within family courts, as well as robust legal protections and enforcement to ensure victims’ safety.


High-Conflict Divorces

A high-conflict divorce (HCD) is characterized by ongoing, intense disputes that often lead to prolonged legal battles, particularly over child custody, asset division, and financial settlements. HCDs frequently involve severe emotional elements — such as hostility, manipulation, and blame — which make negotiation nearly impossible. Unfortunately, in many cases, what is labeled a high-conflict divorce is actually a continuation of post-separation abuse.

Recognizing this distinction is critical for addressing the power imbalances that keep survivors entangled in harmful legal disputes. Labeling these cases as “high-conflict” implies shared responsibility for a combative relationship. However, for victims of intimate partner abuse, thisassumption of mutuality is inaccurate and often challenging to overcome. In reality, the conflict often stems from a long-standing pattern of abuse orchestrated by one party attempting to control the other.

While research estimates suggest that around 20% to 30% of divorces fall into the high-conflict category (Harris, Hensley, & Scherer, 2021), HCDs consume a disproportionate amount of resources compared to typical divorces. Studies indicate that, due to the complexity and emotional intensity of these cases, HCDs take up an estimated 90% of family court time and resources (Haddad et al., 2016), including court time, legal fees, and involvement from specialized professionals, such as mediators, counselors, and HCD coaches. In addition to financial costs, HCDs can strain the emotional resources of all parties involved, particularly children caught in the middle.

Every divorce is unique, and HCDs can arise for various reasons. However, certain factors increase their likelihood, such as when a partner has a high-conflict personality disorder or when mental illness, substance abuse, or IPV is involved. Not surprisingly, the personality disorders that contribute to HCDs are often the same as those associated with IPV, particularly Cluster B personality disorders.


Cluster B Personality Disorders and Their Role in Intimate Partner Violence and High-Conflict Divorces

According to the American Psychiatric Association, a personality disorder is characterized by enduring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that deviate from cultural expectations and cause distress or impair functioning. While many personality disorders exist, not all are linked to intimate partner violence (IPV) and high-conflict divorce (HCD). However, some of the most commonly associated disorders fall within Cluster B, a group of mental health conditions marked by intense, unpredictable emotions and challenging interpersonal relationships. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) classifies Cluster B disorders as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD).

Each of these disorders poses challenges for individuals and their relationships, often leading to conflicts in intimate partnerships and divorce proceedings. Individuals with these disorders are also more likely to face legal or social consequences due to their behaviors. It is essential to recognize that not all individuals with high-conflict personalities have been formally diagnosed with a Cluster B personality disorder.

Research indicates that a substantial portion of IPV perpetrators exhibit traits associated with Cluster B personality disorders, and many of these individuals perpetrate post-separation abuse through orchestrating HCDs (Collison & Lynam, 2021). The connection between disordered personality traits and IPV is critical for assessing HCD dynamics and protecting victims of both IPV and post-separation abuse.


Implications in the Courtroom

High-conflict personalities often resist negotiation, as it disrupts the power dynamic they seek and the control they wish to maintain over their victims. These individuals can heighten emotional tension, extend legal disputes, and complicate the process of reaching settlement. Their focus tends to be far less on practical solutions and far more on inflicting harm or punishment on their former partners, with the ensuing drama persisting as long as the court permits. In these situations, one party wants out of the relationship, while the other clings to it in a high-conflict, abusive manner, with coercive control tactics.

The concept of coercive control is often misunderstood within the legal system. Only seven states (California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts) explicitly recognize “coercive control” as a form of domestic violence, while most states disproportionately emphasize physical violence in domestic abuse laws. This oversight can neglect harmful coercive control tactics, such as intimidation, isolation, and manipulation, which can be significantly damaging even in the absence of physical violence. Studies indicate that coercive control is present in 75% of so-called high-conflict divorces (Chadwick & Sloan, 2024), highlighting the necessity of systematically screening for its presence in cases that appear high- conflict.

A lack of awareness regarding coercive control and post-separation abuse poses serious risks, both for individuals experiencing such abuse and for the legal system as a whole. Some key dangers associated with this lack of understanding include:

• Inadequate Protection for Victims: If judges fail to recognize the signs of post-separation abuse, they may not issue appropriate protective orders or take necessary actions to ensure the safety of the victim and their children. This oversight can leave victims vulnerable to ongoing harassment, intimidation, or violence, perpetuating a cycle of abuse.

• Misinterpretation of Evidence: Judges who lack knowledge of post-separation abuse may misinterpret behaviors that are actually forms of coercive control as benign or normal behavior. For example, a judge might view an abuser’s excessive communication or attempts to exert control over custody arrangements as a sign of concern rather than manipulation.

• Impact on Custody Decisions: Misunderstanding the dynamics of post-separation abuse can lead judges to make biased custody decisions that prioritize the rights of the abuser over the safety and well-being of the children. This may result in children being placed in unsafe environments or subjected to parental alienation tactics.

• Perpetuation of Gender Bias: A lack of understanding can reinforce existing gender biases in the legal system. Many victims of post-separation abuse are women, and a failure to recognize the dynamics at play may lead to assumptions about their credibility, thereby undermining their experiences and further perpetuating systemic injustice.

• Increased Emotional and Financial Strain: Victims may be forced to endure prolonged legal battles, leading to increased emotional distress and financial burdens. Judges who do not understand the implications of post-separation abuse may inadvertently contribute to a protracted legal process, compounding the trauma experienced by victims.

• Legal Misguidance: Without proper understanding, judges may provide legal guidance that fails to address the unique challenges posed by post-separation abuse, leading victims to feel unsupported and powerless within the legal system. This can discourage them from pursuing necessary legal protections or resources.

• Negative Impact on Community Perception: The legal system’s handling of post-separation abuse can shape societal attitudes toward domestic violence. If judges consistently overlook or misunderstand these issues, it may reinforce a narrative that downplays the seriousness of post- separation abuse, discouraging victims from seeking help.

To effectively address these dangers, it’s essential for legal professionals, including judges, to receive training on recognizing and responding to post-separation abuse. Resources and support networks for victims must also be strengthened to ensure they receive the protection and assistance they need during and after the separation process.

There is an urgent need for increased awareness at the judicial level about post-separation abuse and the manipulative tactics abusers use to maintain control over survivors’ lives. Family courts are not only failing to protect women from ongoing post-separation abuse but are also subjecting them to secondary trauma — the harsh reality many survivors face when they are neither believed nor protected.

As family courts confront a growing epidemic of post-separation abuse through high-conflict divorce cases that drain resources and perpetuate cycles of abuse, a systemic shift is urgently needed. Only through informed policy changes, increased legal protections, and greater awareness of post-separation abuse can survivors and their families find lasting safety.



CITATIONS:

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., … & Nedd, N. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

Wilson, K. K., Telford, R., & Tully, M. (2022). Coercive control and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520919623

Rezey, M. L. (2020). Separated women’s risk for intimate partner violence: A multiyear analysis using the National Crime Victimization Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5–6), 1055–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517747936

Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2011). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2010(NCJ 235508). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4856

Harris, M. E. H., Hensley, M. L., & Scherer, J. (2021). High-conflict divorce: Children’s perspectives on their experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 62(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2021.1875630

Haddad, L., Phillips, K. D., & Bone, J. M. (2016). High-conflict divorce: A review of the literature. American Journal of Family Law, 29(4), 243–258.

Collison, K. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2021). Personality disorders as predictors of intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 88, Article ID 102047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102047
​
Chadwick, G. R., & Sloan, S. (2024, February). Coercive control in high-conflict custody litigation. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family-law-quarterly/2024-march/coercive-control-high-conflict-custofy-litigation