Recognition of coercive control in law has not eliminated the practical difficulties of enforcement. Coercive abuse is typically composed of numerous minor incidents and communications that appear trivial in isolation but oppressive in combination (Stark, 2007; Douglas, 2015). This creates an evidential challenge for criminal justice practitioners who have historically prioritised visible injury (Walby and Towers, 2018). Effective investigation and prosecution of coercive control require gathering contextual evidence—text messages, financial records, witness statements and call logs—and presenting patterns of domination in ways that meet criminal standards (Myhill, 2015; Home Office, 2021). Without specialist training and trauma-informed practice, broad legal definitions risk producing inconsistent outcomes across police forces and courts (Douglas, 2015; Myhill, 2015).

Statistical patterns underline the limits of legal recognition. Many incidents of domestic abuse are never reported to the police, and reliance on criminal justice data alone will understate need (Myhill, 2015). Under-reporting, combined with shortages in refuge spaces and uneven local commissioning, means that survivors often face a gap between legal rights and practical routes to safety (Rights of Women, 2021). Service shortfalls—insufficient refuge capacity, limited advocacy, and constrained legal aid—turn statutory protections into hollow promises for many survivors (Rights of Women, 2021). Rights without services are limited rights; the Act’s success therefore depends on sustained, ring-fenced investment in refuges, independent domestic violence advisers and multi-agency risk assessment (Home Office, 2021; Rights of Women, 2021).

Family justice processes illustrate another institutional weakness. Separation does not reliably end abuse; post-separation harassment, legal intimidation and manipulation through child contact arrangements are common (Birchall and Choudhry, 2018). Family courts, child protection and criminal justice systems frequently operate with different assumptions. A behaviour recognised as coercive control in one system may be misread as mutual conflict in another, exposing survivors and children to further risk (Hester, 2011). Embedding domestic abuse expertise across family justice processes, limiting direct cross-examination by alleged perpetrators and adopting trauma-informed, risk-sensitive procedures are essential to prevent courts from becoming a continuation of abuse by other means (Birchall and Choudhry, 2018; Stanley and Humphreys, 2015).

Migrant survivors face distinct structural barriers that the Act does not fully resolve. Conditions such as No Recourse to Public Funds can deny access to housing, welfare and emergency support, forcing survivors to choose between abuse and destitution (Rights of Women, 2021; Southall Black Sisters, 2022). Perpetrators may exploit immigration dependency by threatening deportation or withdrawing sponsorship (Southall Black Sisters, 2022). Legal recognition of abuse is insufficient where immigration status excludes survivors from essential services; policy change is required to decouple access to support from immigration insecurity (Rights of Women, 2021; Southall Black Sisters, 2022).

Children’s experiences of domestic abuse must be recognised directly. Exposure to coercive environments—fear, instability and control—produces emotional, behavioural and developmental harm even when children are not the direct targets of violence (Callaghan, Alexander and Kelly, 2018). Child protection systems sometimes misattribute responsibility to non-abusive parents rather than identifying the perpetrator’s coercive behaviour (Stanley and Humphreys, 2015). Effective child protection requires trauma-informed assessment that treats exposure to domestic abuse as harm in its own right and prioritises the safety and well-being of children alongside survivors (Callaghan, Alexander and Kelly, 2018; Stanley and Humphreys, 2015).

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is a necessary and important foundation: it reframes abuse beyond isolated incidents and brings coercive control and economic harm into statute (Home Office, 2021; Walby and Towers, 2018). Yet statutory language alone does not guarantee safety. To make the Act sufficient, the UK must ensure consistent, trauma-informed enforcement of coercive control; embed domestic abuse expertise across criminal and family justice systems; address economic abuse with targeted remedies; remove immigration-related barriers to support; recognise children’s exposure as harm; and fund specialist services reliably (Birchall and Choudhry, 2018; Home Office, 2021; Rights of Women, 2021). Only by combining legal recognition with institutional reform, coordinated practice and sustained investment will statutory progress translate into real, accessible routes to safety for survivors and their children (Stark, 2007; Southall Black Sisters, 2022).