Coercive Control In Child Custody Cases Involved In Family Courts: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Training, and Policy Gaps

Background and Purpose:

Coercive control is a patterned system of domination that deprives victims, primarily women, of autonomy, social connectedness, and access to resources necessary for full civic participation. Yet family courts, as key democratic institutions, continue to rely on incident‑based frameworks that obscure these ongoing patterns of harm. In the United States, the absence of a standardized legal definition and limited statutory recognition undermine equitable access to justice for victims and children. This scoping review synthesizes empirical and conceptual scholarship to examine how coercive control is defined, assessed, and operationalized by family court professionals, and identifies training and policy gaps that shape custody outcomes with implications for equity, safety, and the common good.

Methods:

Using Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework and Levac et al.’s (2010) refinements, a scoping review of peer‑reviewed, English‑language studies published between 2007–2025 was conducted. Searches across nine interdisciplinary databases yielded 1,087 records; eight studies met inclusion criteria after two‑stage screening. PRISMA‑ScR guidelines informed documentation. Data were extracted into an analytic matrix capturing statutory definitions, evaluator training, theoretical orientation, and custody outcomes. A second reviewer ensured consistency, and triangulation was achieved through cross‑study comparison.

Results:

Across studies, coercive control was inconsistently conceptualized and rarely operationalized by judges, ad litem attorneys, or custody evaluators. Definitions were absent or ambiguous, and none reported using coercive‑control‑specific screening tools. Training was limited to general domestic violence content, leaving evaluators without the knowledge needed to identify patterned abuse. Structural features of family law, such as joint custody presumptions and “friendly parent” provisions, were repeatedly identified as barriers that obscure coercive control and may inadvertently advantage perpetrators. Theoretical orientation (e.g., feminist vs. family violence frameworks) significantly shaped evaluators’ interpretations and recommendations.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings reveal substantial gaps in definitional clarity, evaluator training, and institutional policy, limiting courts’ ability to uphold democratic principles of fairness, safety, and equitable participation. Without tools to recognize coercive control as a patterned system of domination, custody decisions may place victims and children at ongoing risk and reinforce structural inequities. This review underscores the urgent need for a) standardized operational definitions of coercive control, b) specialized, mandatory training for evaluators, ad litem attorneys, and judges; c) validated screening tools tailored to family court contexts; and d) policy reforms that move beyond incident‑based frameworks.

Strengthening courts’ capacity to identify coercive control is essential to promoting justice, protecting vulnerable families, and advancing the common good, core commitments of social work research in service of a thriving democracy.