Domestic violence and coercive control. What are the stakes for the justice of tomorrow?
This article is based on the recent doctrinal analysis by the Deputy Public Prosecutor: François, A., « Coercive control: a real novelty in the fight against domestic violence between (ex-) partners? », Act. dr. fam., 2025/6, p. 219-247
The law of 13 July 2023 known as « Stop Femicide » has explicitly defined in Belgian law the notion of coercive control. This legal recognition constitutes a step forward in understanding and combating violence in domestic settings between (ex-)partners.
1. What is coercive control?
Coercive control refers to a pattern of ongoing or repeated behaviours aimed at dominating, isolating and controlling a partner or ex-partner. Unlike physical violence, coercive control is sustained over time and includes:
· Social isolation (e.g.: cutting the victim off from their family and friends)
· Constant surveillance (e.g.: GPS trackers, monitoring communications)
· Economic control : (e.g.: restricting access to financial resources)
· Threats and intimidation (e.g.: death threats, repeated visits to the home)
· Psychological abuse (e.g.: belittling, humiliation, manipulation)
Although not constituting a new offence, this concept must be taken into account by the police services and the magistrates in the assessment of the cases they are seized with.
2. Application by the Belgian courts
In criminal matters
Court of Appeal of Mons – ruling of 30 June 2025
The Court of Appeal of Mons applied the concept of coercive control in criminal matters in a case of violence between ex-partners including matters of morals.
Child custody
Court of Appeal of Liège – ruling of 3 March 2025
The Court examines coercive control in the context of the custody of a common child and decides to reduce the father's right to personal relations in light of the presence of coercive control.
Court of Appeal of Liège – ruling of 22 May 2025
In the face of a proven dynamic of domestic violence, the Court considers that a shared custody is premature. It invites the Attorney General to inform it about :
· The possible initiation of criminal proceedings against the father
· The existence of other open prosecutorial information
Court of Appeal of Mons – ruling of 28 July 2025
The Court completely suspends the secondary custody of the father and prohibits any contact with his two daughters due to the existence of a coercive control.
The elements highlighted by the public prosecutor include:
· Complaints filed by the mother
· Medical certificates documenting the violence
· Hidden GPS tracker on the mother’s vehicle
· Spyware installed on her phone
· Death threats and repeated visits to the home
· Written messages acknowledging “causing suffering” to the victim
· Interviews with the children who describe a climate of violence and fear
· Expert reports
The public prosecutor confirms: “When analysed as a whole, these facts reveal coercive control.”
Exclusive parental authority
In a context of violence, the Court of Appeal of Mons granted exclusiveparental authority to the mother, with this reasoning:“In a context of violence, particularly psychological, contacting the violent parent, having to negotiate with them and being systematically dependent on their prior agreement for a range of decisions concerning the child can quickly become unliveable for the victim parent, materially and psychologically. The tensions that will result will inevitably resurface on the child.” (quoted on page 244 of A. François's article)
« In a context of violence, particularly psychological, coming into contact with the parent who is the perpetrator of violence, having to negotiate with them and systematically depending on their prior agreement for a set of decisions that concern the child can quickly become unliveable for the victim parent, materially and psychologically. The tensions that will result will inevitably resurface onto the child. » (quoted on page 244 of the article by A. François)
3. Identified dysfunctions of the judicial system
Article 765/1 of the Judicial Code establishes the mission of transmitting information from the public prosecutor to the family courts, for cases involving minors. The ministry must therefore be able to inform the family magistrates about the existence of coercive control.
However, in practice, some failures in information sharing between judicial departments persist :
· Structural problems of the public prosecutor's office preventing a complete and informed opinion being given to family hearings
· Lack of digitalisation at the judicial level preventing information from circulating between the different district magistrates.
4. In summary
The recognition of coercive control in Belgian law represents a major advance. Family courts now have tools to :
· Identify patterns of domination beyond physical violence
· Protect victims and children through appropriate measures
· Suspend or remove the accommodation of the violent parent
· Grant exclusive parental authority when co-parenting is unliveable
However, the lack of structural resources and the absence of digitalisation in the justice system compromise the effective application of these advances. The failing communication between the public prosecutor's office and the family courts remains a major obstacle to the protection of victims.
This document is not a legal consultation. For any questions regarding your personal situation, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Our multidisciplinary team is at your disposal to assist you.