By Rachel Cook [1], of counsel at Peters & Peters, and Sarah Williams [2], head of children at Forsters
Rachel Cook
Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour increasingly arise across both family and criminal jurisdictions. While that overlap is well recognised, the practical implications for lawyers are increasingly acute.
The growing willingness of the family courts to engage with such behaviour, particularly in the context of financial remedies, means that allegations can now carry significant consequences even before any criminal process has concluded.
The recent decision in LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 illustrates the point. The Family Court departed from the starting point of equal sharing and reduced one party’s entitlement significantly after making findings of coercive and controlling behaviour, notwithstanding that related criminal proceedings were ongoing.
In doing so, the court recognised that the financial impact of such behaviour was, in fact, quantifiable and relevant to overall fairness.
For practitioners, the significance lies as much in timing as outcome, and in the risks that flow from that. Findings may be made, and relied upon, in family proceedings before the criminal evidential picture is complete.
Tactical deployment of allegations
Allegations of coercive or controlling behaviour are increasingly central to the narrative of family proceedings and may now directly affect financial outcomes.
This creates an obvious incentive for allegations to be advanced at an early stage. Once raised, they may influence interim arrangements, shape the court’s perception, and frame the issues for determination, often before they have been tested in any criminal process.
For lawyers, this raises a difficult question. Allegations which may ultimately be the subject of criminal investigation are being deployed within a civil forum, under a lower standard of proof, and at a much earlier stage.
That may be entirely legitimate within family proceedings, but it may carry consequences beyond them.
Parallel proceedings: timing and evidential risk
Criminal investigations into coercive and controlling behaviour are often lengthy. By contrast, family proceedings, tasked with addressing financial needs and safeguarding concerns, are driven by the need for expedition.
The result is a clear asymmetry: parties may be required to give detailed accounts in family proceedings, including under cross-examination, before criminal disclosure has engaged.
From a criminal perspective, this creates a real risk for those advising clients. Accounts given in family proceedings may later be scrutinised in the criminal context, with inconsistencies relied upon. At the same time, the absence of disclosure may limit a party’s ability to respond fully to allegations at the family stage.
The court in LP v MP was prepared to proceed notwithstanding an ongoing criminal case. For practitioners, that reflects a practical reality: the two systems operate on different timelines, and neither will wait for the other.
Disclosure and information asymmetry
These timing issues are compounded by differences in disclosure regimes.
Criminal proceedings are governed by the statutory framework under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, while family proceedings rely on material placed before the court by the parties, often at an earlier stage and without a fully developed evidential picture.
In practice, concerns remain as to the adequacy of disclosure in summary proceedings, particularly in the magistrates’ court, which may further exacerbate the difficulties faced by parties navigating parallel proceedings.
Although the 2024 protocol seeks to facilitate information sharing between jurisdictions, it creates no entitlement to disclosure and does not displace the statutory regime. In practice, access to core evidential material is often limited prior to charge.
The result is that serious allegations may be determined in family proceedings without material that may later emerge in the criminal process. This creates a difficult environment in which to advise. Lawyers are therefore often required to advise in circumstances where the evidential picture is both incomplete and evolving.
Sarah Williams
A family law perspective: why proceedings cannot wait
From a family law perspective, the progression of proceedings cannot usually be delayed pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.
The court is required to deal with cases justly and expeditiously, particularly where welfare or financial issues arise. In financial remedy proceedings, there is a clear expectation that parties should be able to achieve finality within a reasonable timeframe. In children cases, delay may itself be harmful.
Where allegations of coercive or controlling behaviour are raised, the court may therefore be required to determine them on the balance of probabilities in order to progress the case. That may involve fact-finding at a stage when the criminal process remains at an early or investigative phase.
For family practitioners, the focus is necessarily on ensuring that the court has sufficient material to make findings and to determine a fair outcome. That imperative does not always align with the pace or requirements of a criminal investigation.
Professional risk for lawyers
Against that background, the professional risks for lawyers are clear.
Advising clients in parallel proceedings requires careful judgment as to how and when allegations are advanced, and how evidence is given. Decisions taken in family proceedings may have indirect implications for any criminal investigation or prosecution.
There is a particular tension in relation to the giving of evidence. Clients may be required to set out detailed accounts at an early stage, often before disclosure in the criminal proceedings has taken place. Ensuring consistency of account is critical, but the strategic priorities of each forum may diverge.
Practical considerations
Early identification of parallel risk is essential.
Where allegations arise, consideration should be given at the outset to whether criminal proceedings are likely, and how that may affect the conduct of the case. Co-ordinated holistic advice, drawing on both family and criminal expertise, will often be necessary.
Careful thought should also be given to the timing and content of evidence. The absence of disclosure does not remove the need to engage with allegations in family proceedings, but it does require a measured approach.
Conclusion
As family courts increasingly engage with coercive and controlling behaviour in assessing financial outcomes, the stakes in parallel proceedings have risen.
For lawyers, the challenge is not simply navigating two systems, but managing the interaction between them. Those systems operate to different standards, on different timelines, and with different objectives, and they do not always align.
The expansion of legal rights for cohabiting couples may, in due course, broaden the range of cases in which these issues arise.