Written by Clarissa Chan, NSRLP student researcher; originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine.
Navigating the legal system is challenging for any self-represented litigant (SRL), but for victim-survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) or family violence, it can also be deeply retraumatizing. Without a lawyer, SRLs are directly exposed to the adversarial nature of the court process, where abusers can continue harassing victim-survivors through aggressive and oppositional tactics. At least 40% of family law litigants self-represent, often because they earn too much to qualify for legal aid but not enough to sustain representation. Abusers exploit this financial vulnerability, hoping that financial hardship will force their victims to give in—particularly in custody and support disputes. As a result, rather than providing safe, neutral spaces to respectfully work out divorce and custody disputes, for many survivors courts become yet another arena where abuse can continue. This is particularly true for women, who may be disproportionately targeted by post-separation abuse: courts also tend to assume that abuse ends when a relationship ends, but research shows that post-separation abuse is both common and under-recognized. While public perception sometimes suggests that family law is biased in favour of women, the reality is more complicated. Women who don’t conform to narrow stereotypes about the “ideal victim” or “ideal mother” can be penalized in rulings about parenting time and decision-making. Many people also struggle to accept the prevalence of IPV under the assumption that it’s rare and/or deployed as a ‘tactic’ in family law litigation, thereby dismissing legitimate claims as improbable. In reality, 30% of all the police-reported instances of violence in 2019 were reports of IPV, which is particularly significant given that 80% of all IPV isn’t reported at all.
Family violence and coercive control
These gaps in protection are especially dangerous when abuse takes the form of coercive control (loosely understood as an ongoing pattern of domination and harm), rather than isolated incidents. While there’s still significant debate about the definition of coercive control, it usually includes some combination of tactics such as stalking/surveillance, psychological control (e.g. threats, false reports of abuse), financial control, physical violence, and/or sexual abuse. Critically, abusers can exploit court-ordered arrangements to continue violence after the end of a relationship, particularly when children are involved. They use parenting time arrangements to track victim-survivors, alienate children from mothers during unsupervised parenting time, and/or use pick-up and drop-off to create conflict.
Courts also generally assume that it’s in the “best interests” of a child to have access to both parents, but mothers may be held to much higher standards than fathers, whose presence is frequently seen as almost universally beneficial to children, even when they have histories of violence. For example, in KM v JR, the mother filed a motion to reduce the father’s parenting time, arguing that he was abusive. He countered that she had fabricated allegations of family violence to dissuade the court from considering a co-parenting arrangement. The reality is that fabrications of family violence are rare. However, mothers are frequently advised against bringing up violence to avoid accusations of parental alienation (which can be weaponized as against a spouse alleging violence), and women who raise concerns about IPV can receive harsher judicial treatment. The judge in KM found the mother to be pleasant and generally credible, but also that her justification for reducing the father’s parenting time was selfish – this, notwithstanding the court also finding that the father was disrespectful and unruly in court. Justice Pazaratz saw his aggressive behaviour as a sign of “honesty” and “authenticity.” He determined that the father’s behaviour as a parent was more relevant than his courtroom behavior, while the mother’s credibility was questioned when she showed discomfort answering questions about her abuse. She was apparently held to a far higher standard, even though the father’s courtroom behaviour was consistent with her allegations.
As noted, mothers who speak out about abuse can be accused of parental alienation, especially if they don’t fit the mold of the “ideal victim.” Courts expect abuse to be physical, well-documented, and followed by an immediate exit from the relationship. The reality is that financial dependence, forced isolation, pre-existing vulnerabilities, and/or psychological manipulation make it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for many women to leave abusive relationships within timelines that courts find credible. A delay in leaving an abusive partner is often used to discredit a woman’s experiences. In KK v MM, the father’s lawyer suggested that if the mother had actually been abused, she would have left the marriage. However, the mother wasn’t allowed to have a bank account or cell phone, and wasn’t allowed to work, making it nearly impossible for her to leave. She stated that she had wanted to leave the father, but had nowhere to go, unaware of women’s shelters or community supports.
SRL status
In these cases, it appears that SRLs are expected to adhere to the stereotypes of both the competent litigant/advocate and the credible victim. Litigants are expected to be both represented and emotionally neutral, so when SRLs (particularly women) show emotion, they’re often seen as irrational or untrustworthy. And if their experience of abuse isn’t packaged neatly into a clean, linear narrative sufficiently backed-up according to the assumptions of the court (which is particularly difficult for SRLs navigating the legal system on their own), they risk accusations of parental alienation or false allegations of violence. For instance, in KK v MM, a court-appointed doctor (testifying for the father) found that the mother (self-represented at the time), had attempted to alienate the couple’s children from the father by alleging abuse. This finding was used to grant the father temporary primary care of the children with no contact with their mother for 3 months. This finding of parental alienation was ultimately discredited, and the doctor subject to remedial training. But this case illustrates how accusations of parental alienation can be weaponized against mothers (and SRLs) who allege abuse, especially those marginalized by language, class, race, or other vulnerabilities.
SRLs also continue to struggle to articulate their claims in a way that aligns with legal language and procedure. This is particularly challenging in the context of family law when a SRL is attempting to introduce legal and evidentiary issues of family violence. In Mane v Mane, the self-represented mother repeatedly referred to the “tort of abuse,” and was inconsistent on whether she was making a tort claim at all or just using the claim to support her position on parenting time. Because legal language and substantive law remains complex, SRLs often struggle to navigate it with little to no support. In these moments, it is incumbent on a judge to adopt a more supportive or inquisitorial approach to clarify the nature of the claim.
Moving Forward
We know that many SRLs face barriers such as language and literacy issues, limited access to technology, limited knowledge of the law, and a general lack of familiarity with the legal system; the challenges faced by SRLs generally are exacerbated in cases involving family violence. Groups that already work on IPV and family violence are well-positioned to help, with the right support and resources. They can offer training and education not only to victim-survivors, but for trusted intermediaries who are likely to encounter survivors in their work. Settlement workers, for example, are typically the first people newcomers encounter in Canada, and are more likely to have the language skills to communicate effectively with new immigrants. But many working in this field may not have the training to recognize IPV or respond when someone discloses abuse. Organizations should look to work directly with those who are likely to encounter victim-survivors to provide education about IPV and coercive control, in ways that are accessible to victim-survivors of different backgrounds. This is especially important because language and cultural contexts shape how people speak about violence. In KK v MM, the mother attempted to explain her experiences to hospital staff but didn’t know the phrase “domestic violence” in English. Additionally, it is imperative that the justice system insiders – judges and lawyers and court workers – who encounter cases at the intersection of self-representation and family violence are made aware of the unique challenges associated with representing oneself in such a case, and how the presentation of their case by an SRL might be impacted by the very circumstances of the family violence.
The case law and lived experiences of SRLs, as well as those who work on issues of IPV and family violence, reflect the urgency of this issue. The question from an access to justice perspective is how collaboration among individuals and organizations might provide better support to SRLs who are attempting to navigate the intersection of family law and IPV/family violence.
i am in a divorce action and i had to go to great lengths to persuade a lawyer to file this action as an abuse action. I sat in supreme court of BC on july 15 of this year, while my soon to be ex husband told the judge, a woman, this was not so much a legal action as a mental health issue. He has been telling the court i every way possible that i am mentally ill, i need a guardian ship order etc etc. But i had no idea i would have to sit in open court and hear this again, and the judge said nothing about it. NOT ONE WORD. So the abuse continues, right in front of judges, who will do next to nothing about it.
The problem is that Lawyer’s and Judge’s is that they are not educated in ill pathology like cluster B personalities. The experts say that Narcissistic personalities is an epidemic. Listen to Dr. Hare, Canadian Psychologist from University of BC on utube and Sandra L Brown who wrote the book, Women who live psychopaths. Some classic traits are the smear campaigns, making you look unstable and the crazy one, being manipulative, and pathological liars. I’m in the courts with an ex that has exhibited all the traits. I couldn’t get Judge’s to hear me tell my truth that he was lying. I’ve now learned that he’s committed identity theft on CRA filings using my sin number. I’ve been denied a fair trial and disclosure. It’s an absolute disgrace. Vice been made to be the incompetent one because they believe a cunning manipulative liar. Things need to change and it is a big problem how women are prejudiced and ridiculed. I’m living in poverty while my ex is hiding his millions. Where’s the justice in this?
Your not alone. I’m experiencing the same .
From my experience with the courts, since 2011 to date, there have been two key notes I have bookmarked from my experience that is related to the subject of which you speak, that being the judges attitude or what they say in court.
1. I would ask you, ” but what does their endorsement / order say?” It seems it matters less what they say on court record and more what matters is what they in fact order the parties to do. Because of my own disability and experiences with abuse, I began to ask myself, “but what have they ordered me to or the other party to actually do? What is it I “must” do?”.
2. Sitting in the audience of a Law Society convocation meeting (big words for “board meeting to discuss issues at hand” at the Law Society”), whispering a conversation with the person sitting next to me, a lovely 30-something lawyer thus severally years out of the ideals of law school but not yet tarnished by the system, said 30-something lovely lawyer said to me (unofficially), “If you can withstand the bluster, they [the judiciary] must apply the law.” In other-words (my interpretation, thus in no way legal advice), it seems to what occurs in the courtroom may sometimes seem more like theatrics or sometimes feel that the “bench” isn’t listening to a self-rep or doesn’t care…but in fact (it seems) they are providing optics vice what is actually going on inside their mind.
Thus, my question to anyone experiencing what may feel like bias or disinterest or bluster (and may on occasion be so), is … “…but what does the endorsement/order say?” What was ordered?
Withstand the bluster or lack thereof. #NotLegalAdvice #JustMyThoughts
Note: I do not respond to email communication.
If Kiera’s law was being implemented we might start to see a change in how Judges incorrectly rely on myths and stereotypes when assessing and describing IPV and survivors responses. Its very disheartening that no implementation had occurred.
Isn’t that the problem? It took a mother to endure such unimaginable loss to push for this law in memory of her daughter to bring awareness but, the reality is we’re experiencing the same traits exhibited by lawyers and judges. They either possess the narcissistic abusive controlling behaviour or they’re ignorant and uneducated in recognizing the ill pathology. What’s it going to take for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to implement training in our justice system so they recognize the patterns of abuse? My ex is a master manipulator and pathological liar. He’s done such a performance in the courts drumming up so many lies and smear campaigns against me of false accusations that I am so disturbed by his behaviour. It hasn’t mattered one bit that I’ve produced exhibits and pointed out his inconsistencies. He’s so good at manipulating the truth that I shut down because I’m worn out with mental exhaustion. I’m so disgusted with our Legal system. My son called the courthouse tge devils castle and I think he’s right! You go to court hoping for fairness without bias and prejudice and I can’t say that’s been my experience.
In Ontario it is nearly impossible to get a legally aided lawyer if your matter is in superior court. It is expensive and time consuming for them. So that means if there are any property issues or the need to file a divorce you are unlikely to get representation. The Family Law Information Centers also do not provide advice or support for individuals in superior court. An SLR can get summary advice on the phone, with the understanding that the lawyer did not look at your file. So victims of IPV must accept that they are very much on their own as their ex continues to use the courts to protract this abuse by seeking numerous adjournments, refusing to file financials, and with income being imputed to them refusing to pay support, etc. And, sadly, most Judges refuse to consider this abuse, even though it is defined as such in the Divorce Act
As a proud graduate of an NSRLP program, I want to thank you for publishing this critical article. This is not just a piece of academic research for me; it is the chillingly accurate account of my own 16-year legal battle in family court. My story is a living case study that proves your central thesis: the legal system, when navigated by a self-represented litigant, can become a primary instrument of post-separation abuse and coercive control.
My case has been a textbook example of every systemic failure you describe. The financial vulnerability you mention has been exploited at every turn. Despite paying over $160,000 in child support, I was consistently kept just below the 40% access threshold, which, as you know, has profound financial implications. This strategy has resulted in me overpaying child support by an estimated $120,000, money that the other parent has explicitly stated is being used to pay her legal fees for continuous litigation against me. This is not justice; it is state-sanctioned financial abuse.
The most egregious example of the system’s failure, however, lies in its refusal to adhere to basic facts. The court has repeatedly sided with the other parent’s assertion that my requested three-week summer vacation—August 1st to August 22nd—is “5 weeks” and not in agreement with the order. This consistent miscalculation, which has been used to not only deny meaningful access, but to deprive the child access his grand father and extended family stretch across Europe from Amsterdam to Zagreb, as well as grand mother and great grand mother in Quebec, is a clear sign that the court is not operating on objective reality but is instead enabling a pattern of coercive control.
Your article rightly points out that courts can become “another arena where abuse can continue.” I have experienced this firsthand: my affidavits were deliberately gatekept by the opposing lawyer’s office, who refused to sign a receipt until I began recording. I have also witnessed a judge in my case acknowledge a personal relationship with an individual from the opposing team, a blatant conflict of interest that strikes at the heart of judicial impartiality. I also provided an article from the cbc in the child’s voice talking about how his mum, stepfather and every one on that side of his family were all cheering for England to beat Croatia in the world cup and how he was cheering for the underdog which he said he pointed out he has family from.
The human cost of this litigation is immense. The psychological and financial stress culminated in a spontaneous brain hemorrhage. My livelihood is now in jeopardy due to the suspension of my passport, a direct consequence of a costs order based on these flawed rulings. My experience confirms that without a fair process, the legal system will not provide safety or justice; it will simply amplify the abuse.
Your work is vital because it gives a name to these injustices. My hope is that by sharing my story, others will understand that what they are experiencing is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger, systemic problem that demands urgent reform. Thank you for your tireless work in this field.