Coercive Control Field Check / INST
Category 10
Institutional and Legal Systems Abuse
The deliberate weaponization of legal and institutional processes to continue control after separation. The abuser files frivolous or repetitive actions, makes false or exaggerated reports, and manipulates professionals so that courts, police, and evaluators become instruments of ongoing coercion.
Miller & Smolter 2011; Douglas 2018; Gutowski & Goodman 2023; Sweet 2019, 2021.
INST-1
Threats or References to Deploying Authorities Against the Target
Invoking police, child-protective services, immigration authorities, professional licensing boards, or other institutional actors as weapons to induce fear, compel compliance, or punish resistance.
INST-2
Vexatious or Strategic Litigation References
Using filings, motions, subpoenas, the cost or duration of litigation itself, or an accurate court order or process as leverage or a threat rather than as a genuine invocation of process.
INST-3
Manipulating Third-party Professionals and Audiences
Performing for, recruiting, or deceiving evaluators, therapists, mediators, teachers, custody professionals, or mutual contacts in order to isolate or discredit the target.
INST-4
Immigration Document Withholding and Application Interference
Withholding, confiscating, or destroying the target's passport, visa, green card, or other immigration paperwork, or obstructing, withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw support for a pending immigration petition or application.
INST-5
Constructing the Target as Non-credible
The abuser uses institutional engagement (courts, police, child protection, immigration, mental-health systems, evaluators, and other professionals) to construct the target as unstable, irrational, vindictive, or otherwise non-credible.
Literature this family is drawn from
- Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851-875.
- 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.
- Bettinson, V. (2022). A comparative analysis of the defence of duress in England and Wales and Scotland: Implications for victims of coercive control. Journal of Criminal Law.
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-1(b) (Jennifer’s Law, 2021).
Carlton, C. (2026). Coercive Control Field Check: INST Institutional and Legal Systems Abuse. Coercive Control Observatory. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.