Is it coercive control? / CHI / CHI-4
CHI-4
Obstructing joint decision-making
Definition
Withholding consent, significantly delaying, or refusing to finalize a decision the parties are required to make jointly (medical treatment, mental health care, school enrollment/placement, extracurricular commitments) by demanding open-ended additional information, further discussion, or repeated re-litigation of an already-settled point, such that the decision never actually gets made.
How it operates
Withholding consent, significantly delaying, or refusing to finalize a jointly required decision on medical treatment, mental-health care, school enrollment or placement, or extracurricular commitments. Demanding open-ended additional information, further discussion, or repeated re-litigation of an already-settled point, so the decision never actually gets made.
Function
Retain veto power over the child's life and frustrate the target's capacity to meet the child's needs.
Harm
Unmet health and developmental needs for the children. The target cannot protect or provide for the child without the abuser's permission.
Why this is coercive control
A single, time-bound request for clarification or a second opinion before consenting is ordinary co-parenting. The conduct here retains veto power over the child's life and frustrates the target's capacity to meet the child's needs.
Constructed example
“I hear you on the specialist's recommendation, but before we move forward I really think we need to talk it through more. Can you send me her records again? Maybe a third opinion?”
Fictitious. Written to illustrate the behavior. Not a case.
Katz 2016; Spearman et al. 2025; Stark 2007.
Literature this family is drawn from
- Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
- Katz, E. (2016). Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, 25(1), 46-59.
- Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84-99.
- Miller, S. L., & Smolter, N. L. (2011). “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 637-650.
- Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.
Identifying a behavior described here does not establish a pattern of behavior and does not establish coercive control. A tactic is not a regime. The instrument consolidates peer-reviewed literature so a reader can check when in doubt. The instrument is not a coding manual. Carlton Research does not provide the instrument as a weapon.
© 2026 Carisa Carlton.
Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: CHI-4. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/chi-4. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.