Coercive Control Field Check / CHI / CHI-6
CHI-6
Unilaterally Changing, Withholding or Delaying Time-Critical Child-Logistics Information
Definition
Withholding, delaying, or drip-feeding exchange information, authorizations, itineraries, addresses, or pickup details the other parent needs for a safe handoff or for the child's needs, so the abuser remains the only person with the relevant information.
How it operates
Announcing a change to a child's flight, train, bus, or unaccompanied-minor itinerary without a confirmation number, passenger-name record, ticket image, or carrier authorization the other parent can verify. Holding the only usable key to a vendor record after a cancellation or rebooking. Missing a stated deadline for tickets, confirmation, pickup windows, or handoff addresses while discussing the dispute or a best-interests frame instead of producing the record. Drip-feeding partial screenshots or informal assurances that do not give a searchable record before departure or return. Routing time-critical logistics only through counsel or a monitored app in a form that still omits the locator the vendor requires.
Function
Monopolize the time-critical keys to the child's movement so independent verification is impossible, and so compliance, delay, or further contact becomes the price of knowing whether the child can get home.
Harm
For the target: disorientation, inability to confirm a safe exchange, and last-minute scrambling. Ordinary parenting logistics become a site of dependence and fear. For the children: unsafe exchanges or chaos.
Why this is coercive control
Ordinary coordination that sends the confirmation number, ticket, or handoff detail inside the window the travel or exchange requires is not this conduct. Airline or vendor delay documented as the third party's act is not this conduct. The conduct here withholds the only independently usable proof that the child is ticketed or will be met.
Constructed example
“Switching their flight to the 5:55 p.m. return. I'll send details later. The next morning the original reservations are cancelled, and the carrier cannot search by the child's name without a new confirmation number.”
Fictitious. Written to illustrate the behavior. Not a case.
Callaghan et al. 2018; Douglas 2018; Elizabeth 2017; Katz 2016, 2022; Spearman et al. 2024; 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.
© 2026 Carisa Carlton.
Carlton, C. (2026). Coercive Control Field Check: CHI-6. Coercive Control Observatory. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.