A woman who was coerced into living in a cottage on her abusive ex-husband's farm for years says the Family Court system failed to believe her, adding to her trauma. A new report by Right to Equality found that in 66 out of 91 published family law judgments in England and Wales, judges displayed victim-blaming language or attitudes, including discrediting, behavioural blame, and trivialisation.
Alice's story: a decade of abuse
Alice, whose name has been changed, lived what appeared to be an idyllic life on her husband's family farm, with stables, horses, and a job at a school. But behind closed doors, she endured nearly two decades of psychological and financial abuse. Her ex-husband controlled all finances, leaving her without her own bank account. 'All of the money I earned would go to him,' she said. 'I had a joint account with him that had limited money in it, for the family shopping and things, but I would have to go back to him with receipts so he could check what I bought.'
He justified this control through farming culture, and Alice said she felt she had 'allowed' it. 'I had no independence,' she added. The emotional abuse was constant: 'I was constantly belittled. I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about anything, and if I did he would storm off.' Her children eventually also experienced their father's mistreatment.
Coerced into signing a consent order
When her husband demanded a separation, he ordered Alice to move into a small cottage on the farm grounds, 200 metres from the family home, and insisted the children stay with him. 'I was discarded as a mother,' she said. He then presented a consent agreement, which she signed under duress. 'He kept saying, “Trust me, I’ll look after you, don’t worry about anything.” So, what happened was I ended up signing the consent order that he had compiled, and I didn’t even read it. I was fog-brained from the trauma of the abuse and not thinking clearly.'
The agreement stipulated that Alice could live in the cottage for life, but if she moved out, she would receive a sum insufficient to buy a property or be self-sufficient. After therapy and a diagnosis of complex PTSD, she realised the extent of the manipulation and decided to appeal the consent order.
Court system adds to trauma
In court, Alice's barrister called the consent order unprecedented. Her ex-husband had refused to fully disclose his finances, and many figures were wrong. However, the judge refused to discuss coercive control or emotional abuse. 'I was interrogated by the opposition legal team for two days, and I had to go out twice because I was shaking, I couldn’t speak,' Alice recalled. 'I was told that I had a roof over my head, and I should be grateful.'
She felt the court was 'set up to protect him, his business, and the farm.' Ultimately, she reached a settlement out of court, securing enough to buy her own property. But using her pension to fund legal representation left her financially insecure. 'I’m in my late fifties and I am starting again. It’s really, very scary,' she said.
Systemic bias in family courts
The Right to Equality report highlights a pattern of victim-blaming in family courts. Of 91 judgments analysed, 66 showed bias. Alice's experience mirrors this: 'I have no happy experience of court. I never once felt believed about anything.' She added, 'Too many people assume all abuse is physical. But I had been manipulated and belittled for so many years, and I was no longer a person I recognised. This is why the courts can’t seem to handle it, because they don’t understand, which in my opinion only serves to enable abusers to get away with it.'
