Coercive control in divorce cases means proving a pattern you can see but can’t show. You’re in court listing incidents. Weekend trip to the woods, no cell service, kids unreachable for 48 hours. Your ex’s explanation: digital detox, quality family time. Next incident: showing up at the coffee shop you mentioned going to. Explanation: coincidence, it’s a public place. Bank statement monitoring. Explanation: responsible co-parenting requires financial transparency. The judge sees your list of complaints with rational answers attached. You sound paranoid.

Proposed changes to Canada’s Divorce Act force lawyers to screen for family violence before anything else. Not recommended, mandated. Judges would have to weigh coercive control as part of best interests analysis, not as a discretionary maybe consideration. The shift matters because right now the legal system looks at individual incidents. Passive tracking, financial monitoring, strategic communication blocking all have justifications when examined separately. Pattern recognition requires stepping back to see what’s actually happening, not justifying each specific circumstance. Bach points to the core problem: so many small things that individually don’t paint the picture.

The next time someone tells you about their ex’s behavior and you can’t tell if it’s legitimate concern or bitterness, you’ll recognize the pattern test. Small justifiable actions that add up to control. The law is catching up to what friends and therapists already see.

Topics: coercive control, family violence, divorce act Canada, custody safety, parental alienation

GUEST: Alyssa Bach | http://shulman.ca

Originally aired on2026-02-04