Alice, a woman in her late fifties, was coerced into signing a consent agreement that forced her to live in a small cottage on her ex-husband's farm driveway after nearly two decades of psychological and financial abuse. When she sought to challenge the agreement in Family Court, she says the judge did not believe her and refused to discuss coercive control.
Abuse hidden behind upper-middle class facade
To outsiders, Alice appeared to have a perfect life: a house on her husband's family farm, stables, horses, and a job at a school. But behind closed doors, her ex-husband subjected her to a campaign of belittling and control. 'My husband made me feel unloved, demeaned and like I had no value whatsoever,' Alice told Metro. 'I was constantly belittled. I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about anything, and if I did he would storm off.'
The abuse extended to her children, now in their late teens and early twenties. Her ex-husband's family also mistreated her, she said: 'It was like they wanted my daughter to be theirs when she was born. They would come and take her from me without asking.'
Economic abuse and coercion
Alice experienced economic abuse, a form of coercive control. 'I didn't have my own bank account, all of the money I earned would go to him,' she said. She had a joint account with limited funds for family shopping, but had to provide receipts for his scrutiny. Her husband justified this control through farming culture, she said.
When he demanded a separation, claiming he hadn't loved her for 10 years, he ordered her to move into a small cottage on the farm grounds while the children stayed with him. 'I was discarded as a mother,' Alice said. He later presented a consent agreement, which she signed without reading. 'I was fog-brained from the trauma of the abuse and not thinking clearly,' she explained.
Trauma and court system failure
After therapy, Alice was diagnosed with complex PTSD. Realising the consent agreement trapped her in the cottage for life with insufficient funds to leave, she appealed. Her barrister said he had never seen such an agreement approved by a judge. The court, however, refused to discuss coercive control. 'I was interrogated for two days, shaking and unable to speak,' Alice said. 'I was told I had a roof over my head and should be grateful.'
A report by Right to Equality found that of 91 published family law judgments in England and Wales, 66 showed bias against victims through discrediting, behavioural blame, and trivialisation. Alice felt the court was 'set up to protect him, his business, and the farm.'
Resolution and ongoing struggle
Alice eventually reached an out-of-court settlement, securing enough to buy a three-bedroom cottage where her children can stay. However, she used her pension to fund legal representation and now faces financial insecurity. 'I'm in my late fifties and starting again. It's really, very scary,' she said. 'I have no security. I have anxiety every morning when I wake up.'
Despite the ordeal, Alice looks forward to normal family moments: 'It's been five years of not having a single breakfast with both of my children. I'm looking ahead to when the normal things can happen again.'
