Research by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse suggests up to 3.9 million children in the UK are affected by a parent or carer exerting financial control over the family. Marilyn Bell, partner and joint head of family law at SA Law, explains how it’s evidenced and handled in the family courts and the impact on child arrangements, safeguarding decisions and financial orders.
Economic abuse rarely presents as a single incident. It is typically a pattern of controlling or exploitative conduct, such as preventing access to income, coercing the incurrence of debt, or micro-managing spending. This is often in the context of many years of denigration and disempowerment and the signee is made to think their view or opinion is worthless.
In family proceedings, evidence is built cumulatively. Parties and their advisers should collate bank statements, credit reports, correspondence about withheld funds or coerced borrowing, and contemporaneous messages or emails that show demands, threats, or domination through money. This material helps the court assess both adult and child welfare considerations.
In private children cases, the child’s welfare is paramount. When economic abuse forms part of broader coercive control, it may inform safeguarding decisions, risk assessments, and child arrangements. The court can require fact-finding and may craft arrangements that limit opportunities for financial leverage, using measures such as supervised handovers or indirect contact. Where economic abuse compromises a parent’s ability to meet a child’s needs, the court may also involve Cafcass or local safeguarding partners.
In financial remedy proceedings, economic abuse can be relevant to needs, conduct in limited circumstances, and the practical implementation of orders. Patterns such as dissipation, concealment, or coercion into disadvantageous transactions may justify robust disclosure orders or inferences where disclosure is inadequate. The court may also consider mechanisms that reduce future financial control, such as clear timetables for lump sums, escrow arrangements for one-off payments, or direct-to-provider structures for certain expenses. Practitioners should ensure the court has a coherent narrative of the abuse pattern, its financial footprint, and its implications for fair outcomes and safe future arrangements.
Misuse of child maintenance as a tool of control
Child maintenance should be a predictable contribution to a child’s upkeep, but it can be weaponised. Perpetrators may underpay, pay late, pay erratically, or attach conditions to payment to exert pressure in parallel with contact disputes. This behaviour entrenches financial instability, amplifies stress, and can be used to force concessions on unrelated issues. Current frameworks can leave gaps: reliance on self-reported income, time lags in assessment or enforcement, and fragmented interfaces between family courts and statutory maintenance systems can allow controlling behaviour to persist in the interim.
For example, a payer with their own company may only report the PAYE element of their income, and it has to be a further application to have their dividends taken into account. Obstructive steps taken by a paying parent can lead to months and months of delay. All this causes anxiety for a parent which inevitably impacts on the children. The CMS has made a significant difference and although a recipient may be afraid of the inflammatory effect of an application, it is often beneficial to apply early on and be able to obtain those payments as soon as possible. This may very well lead to the paying parent then refusing to pay other items, such as the mortgage, which can negatively affect future ability to obtain credit.
Where the legal framework depends on applications by the receiving parent, the burden of repeated engagement can itself be part of the coercive dynamic. Improved data sharing, faster income verification, and proactive compliance monitoring can reduce opportunities for manipulation. Clear judicial messaging that contact and maintenance are separate issues, coupled with practical enforcement routes that do not expose victims to repeated confrontation, are essential.
Long-term impact on children
Economic abuse does not only harm the abused parent. Children experience the effects directly when financial control restricts access to food, clothing, safe housing, transport to school, or medical and extracurricular needs. The consequences extend beyond material deprivation. Chronic uncertainty about basics can impair concentration, social participation, and self-esteem. It can also entrench a child’s exposure to adult conflict as money becomes a conduit for ongoing control.
Over time, this can influence educational attainment, emotional regulation, and trust in caregivers and institutions. For example, a financial order can provide for a parent to pay all or part of school extracurricular activities and trips, but as these are unknown amounts it is usually on the basis of having to be agreed in writing first. The controlling parent, can ignore requests, leaving the receiving parent having to say to the children that they do not know if they can go on a school trip. This is very distressing for the child when their friends have a definite answer from their own parents.
Support from lawyers, courts, and government systems
Early identification is key. Lawyers should screen for economic abuse from the first contact, explaining how patterns of control can be evidenced and preserved, and advising on immediate protective and practical steps. Trauma-informed practice, clear safety planning for financial communications, and signposting to specialist services can prevent escalation. Where possible, practitioners should structure correspondence and interim proposals to minimise direct leverage points, for example by advocating for direct-to-provider payments for key child expenses or interim maintenance on-account pending verification.
Courts can support safety and fairness through active case management. Early directions to secure financial disclosure, targeted fact-finding on coercive control where necessary, and orders that reduce opportunities for ongoing control can materially improve outcomes. Clarity that maintenance and contact are separate issues, coupled with swift enforcement for non-compliance, reduces the scope for manipulation.
Government systems should ensure that statutory maintenance processes are resilient to control tactics. This is particularly relevant to the CMS. For example, a paying parent may tell CMS they are not resident in England. CMS could then take this at face value and close their file. Cross-system data sharing between courts, Cafcass, and maintenance authorities can flag patterns early and support coordinated responses.
Economic abuse is a pervasive form of coercive control with direct consequences for children, parenting arrangements, safeguarding decisions, and financial outcomes. By evidencing patterns rigorously, separating maintenance from contact, prioritising children’s essentials, and aligning court practice with responsive statutory systems, the family justice system can reduce the space for control and improve long-term outcomes for children and the non-abusive parent.
About the author
Marilyn Bell is partner and joint head of family law at SA Law. With decades of experience in family law, she has supported parents, grandparents and extended families through some of life’s most difficult chapters. Her work often involves sensitive and high-stakes issues – including child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, and cases where social services are involved. As well as being a solicitor, Marilyn is an accredited mediator and a qualified collaborative lawyer.
