Content uploaded by Christine Cocchiola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christine Cocchiola on Aug 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
COVID19 and Sheltering in Place:
The Experiences of Coercive Control for College Students Returning Home
Christine M. Cocchiola, LCSW
New York University, Silver School of Social Work
Doctorate in Social Welfare Candidate, 2022
Abstract
After months of people sheltering in place, whether due to formal orders or to protect themselves
from COVID-19, we have seen evidence of increases in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). IPV,
already a significant social justice issue worldwide, has been brought to the forefront during the
pandemic, with many victims needing to be in confined spaces with their abusers. This chapter
explores the experiences of sheltering in place for returning college students exposed to coercive
control. It examines how coercive control, often intensified in post separation abuse (PSA) and,
where children are involved, parental alienation (PA), frequently manifest within families.
Children have in the past been termed “secondary victims” of IPV, but this chapter will
demonstrate how they should be considered primary victims of coercive control alongside their
victimized parent. The particular challenges college students face during the COVID-19
pandemic when coercive control and PA are at issue will be delineated, and the many areas
needing further research and exploration will be highlighted.
Keywords: intimate partner violence (IPV), coercive control, psychological abuse, post
separation abuse (PSA), parental alienation (PA), splitting, child maltreatment, Complex Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)
Introduction
“The safest place you can be right now is at home.” We have all heard this statement in
recent months from public health officials and our own community leaders as we attempt to slow
the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), and for most of us, this is true. Yet what if the
home you have returned to—more specifically, the home of one of your parents—is not a haven,
but a place where one parent uses you as a “pawn” to harm your other parent? This parental
alienation, a form of psychological abuse, and an aspect of coercive control usually becomes
evident at the time of parental separation and refers to persistent, unwarranted denigration of one
parent by the other, in an attempt to alienate the child from the other parent (Gardner, 1998).
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, about 1 in 15
children are exposed to intimate partner violence each year, and 90% of these children are
eyewitnesses to this violence (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormond, 2011). There is much
research on the impact of physical IPV, but very little agreement on the impact of coercive
control on children, and the subsequent alienation that often occurs during the time following the
separation of the partnership. The negative implications of IPV on child victims, specifically as
it affects the young adult child prematurely returning home due to the pandemic, is vital to
understanding and implementing support for this population. Their stage in development, their
abrupt loss of independence due to the novel coronavirus, along with trauma they have
experienced as witnesses and victims of coercive control, makes this population extremely
vulnerable. Home indefinitely due to COVID-19, these young adults are taking up residence
between two parents, one of whom has been a victim of coercive control, and the other an
offender. This chapter will explore how these young adults are affected by coercive control and
how they can be better supported by research and best practices of clinicians.
IPV, Psychological Abuse, and Coercive Control
The Center for Disease Control (2019) defines psychological abuse as an aggression that
uses communication, verbal and non-verbal, with intent to harm another emotionally or mentally,
and/or to exert control over another. The WHO uses the term “violence” rather than abuse, and
describes psychological violence as including such things as insults, belittling, constant
humiliation, intimidation (e.g. destroying things), threats of harm, and threats to take away
children. Controlling behavior is defined as isolating a person from family and friends;
monitoring their movements; and restricting access to financial resources, employment,
education, or medical care (World Health Organization, 2012).
IPV, inclusive of psychological abuse, is a serious public health problem, having
significant mental health ramifications, and a legal and social justice problem, shrouded in
secrecy and shame. It is motivated by a need for control on the part of the perpetrator, and need
to exert “power over” is part of a much larger systemic, cultural, and geo-historical problem of
dominance (Price, 2014). Physical abuse, the abuse recognized by our criminal justice system
and known as the "violent incident model" (Stark, 2012, p. 7), leaves a bruise and is horrifying,
often requiring medical intervention. However, covert abuses related to the offender’s need for
control do not require medical intervention. Psychological in nature, these abuses are more easily
hidden and insidious, as well as more difficult to define or explain. Evan Stark uses the term
“liberty crime” for abuse intended to undermine a person's autonomy, freedom, and integrity
(Stark, 2007). A non-physical abuse, coercive control is prevalent in most IPV situations and
oftentimes is a precursor to physical abuse, encompassing psychological, emotional, and
financial abuse, along with “use of the children” and parental alienation. Sometimes called
“intimate terrorism,” coercive control involves tactics deployed to hurt and intimidate victims
(coercion) and to isolate and regulate [victims] (control)" (Stark, 2012).
Stark, the founder of one of the first battered women's shelters in the United States,
explains that these insidious patterns of coercively controlling another are often invisible to
outsiders and due to the manipulated loss of autonomy, victims are often unaware of their victim
status. Due to the ambiguity of defining psychological and emotional abuse, and the
manipulation used by offenders, including portraying themselves as victims, the victim "becomes
captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction
and fear" (Women’s Aid, n.d., para. 4). Additionally, Stark states, coercive control is an abuse
that is a “strategic course of oppressive behavior,” meaning it is rational, premeditated behavior
and not a loss of [the offender's] control. It is “ongoing” rather than episodic, and based on
multiple tactics like violence, intimidation, degradation, isolation, and control (Stark, personal
communication, 2018, Aug 16). There is little that will prevent a perpetrator from continuing
abusive behaviors, even if it means using and thereby harming “shared” (either legally or
otherwise) children in the process.
Post Separation Abuse
Only recently we have recognized a specific form of coercive control occurring in the
context of separation and divorce, known as Post Separation Abuse (PSA). The time of exiting
the relationship is the time when the victim is most at risk for injury or death (Sharp-Jeffs, Kelly,
& Klein, 2017) and is when PSA occurs through coercive control. Sharps-Jeff et al., found that
leaving the relationship was only the first step of the process of ending the abuse, and “over 90
percent [of victims] experienced post-separation abuse” (2017, p. 182). At this time the
coercively controlling behaviors escalate, and where children are involved, the abuse is inclusive
of “using the children” and parental alienation, making them also the victims of this PSA.
According to Kelly, Sharps-Jeff, and Klein (2014), women make up 95% of those who
!
experience coercive control. The National Domestic Violence Hotline (2013) reports that it takes
a victim of IPV approximately seven attempts to leave the relationship (The National Domestic
Violence Hotline, 2013) and it can be assumed that each time is a risk to the victim’s well-being.
According to the Domestic Violence Shelter, Inc., of domestic violence homicides, 75% occurred
when the victims attempted to leave the relationship or after the relationship had ended ( n.d.). A
study by Adhia, Austin, Fitzmaurice, and Hemenway found that 20% of child homicides were
related to IPV (2018), and research suggests there is an association between child domestic
homicide and adult domestic violence, since child domestic homicide is often preceded by adult
domestic violence (Bourget, Grace, and Whitehurts, 2007).
Coercive Control and Subsequent Parental Alienation
The impact of witnessing coercive control perpetrated by one parent against another and
experiencing these controlling behaviors through the role of a “pawn” for the perpetrator, creates
a victimization not readily explained. This use of the children as “pawns” is central to PSA;
however, research on this aspect of coercive control is focused on children as minors and in
relation to custody disputes, not on how young adults are used in this manner, as custody is not
typically an issue. These young adults are often going off to live on their own and/or to college,
partially escaping an abusive situation but coming home to the same circumstances on school
breaks or weekends. With the COVID-19 pandemic, these young adults have returned home
unexpectedly, and because of quarantining, do not have a choice about the extent of time spent
under these conditions, with little opportunity for reprieve. These intensified circumstances have
given perpetrators carte blanche to exert their control.
In coercive control scenarios, parental alienation occurs when the perpetrator or
“alienating parent” (AP) intensifies his behaviors at the time that his partner, the “targeted
"
parent” (TP), exits the relationship and the AP realizes the extent to which he has lost control.
This typically occurs against the backdrop of relationship dissolution and heightened risk that
adult victims and their children enter child custody proceedings (Jeffries, 2016, p. 3). The AP
sets their sights on the child(ren) to exert control and to terrorize the TP, “weaponizing the
children” and turning the coercively controlling behavior on to the children (Jeffries, 2016). The
parental alienation appears to have three basic narratives: the abuser’s need for control, the
abuser’s need to “win,” and the abuser’s desire to hurt or punish the TP.
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) refers to one possible outcome of experiencing PA,
and refers to a condition in which a child has been successfully indoctrinated and controlled by
an AP, resulting in unwarranted fear, hatred, and rejection of the TP. The psychological
foundation of parental alienation, “lack of empathy and inability to tolerate the child’s separate
needs and perceptions – is also the foundation of psychological maltreatment” (Baker & Ben-
Ami, 2011, p. 473). This psychological maltreatment, inclusive of manipulation, has often started
well before the separation of the parents through “splitting” (Bernet, Gregory, Reay, & Rohner,
2017). Splitting is the attempts of the AP to engage the children in the rejection of the TP
through the psychological abuse tactic of gaslighting, whereby the person in a position of power
undermines an individual’s sense of self in an attempt to confuse and distort a person’s reality (in
this case, a child’s) such that the individual must accept the imposed reality in place of their own
(Sweet, 2019). The TP may be portrayed as “evil, dangerous, or not worthy of love” (Bernet et
al., 2017, p.777).
Parental alienation comes in covert ways, such as monitoring behaviors in ways that
intrude upon children’s thoughts and feelings, and implementing manipulative parenting
techniques, such as guilt-induction, shaming, and love withdrawal (Barber, 1996 as quoted by
#
Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2009). This “psychological control” can also be assumed to inhibit
children’s development of a secure sense of self, as we know psychological control is a form of
psychological maltreatment. Children inducted into parental alienation dynamics are not allowed
the freedom to develop an autonomous emotional life (Ben-Ami & Baker, 2012), with the AP
demanding obedience and threatening retaliation, much as the child may have already witnessed
against the TP.
The AP will go to great lengths to destroy the relationship between the child and the TP.
In extreme cases, any mention of the other parent is forbidden within the family or any mention
of the other parent must be one of extreme negativity (Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Clinical
observations have been corroborated by qualitative research carried out by Baker (2005), whose
study involved adults who had experienced parental alienation as children. Baker identified 33
alienating strategies used by alienating parents, such as regularly speaking about the other parent
in a negative manner, limiting contacts with the other parent, becoming angry or demonstrating
less affection for the child if the child acts positively toward the other parent, and telling the
child that the other parent does not love him or her.
The Impact of Coercive Control and Parental Alienation
As Baker and Ben-Ami found in their research (2011), “to turn a child against a parent is
to turn a child against himself” (p. 472), and there is a correlation between parental alienation
and low self-esteem, higher rates of depression, insecure attachment styles, and self-medication,
i.e., substance abuse. Additionally, parents utilizing parental alienation tactics can be considered
to be psychologically maltreating their children because the strategies result directly in children
feeling “worthless, flawed, unloved, endangered, or only of value in meeting other’s needs”
(Binggeli, Hart, & Brassard, 2001, p.6). The consistent negative feedback, insidious or
otherwise, that children receive in such situations, leads to feelings of despair, confusion,
sadness, and a profound sense of loneliness that may together manifest as depression (Lammers,
Ritchie, & Robertson, 2005).
Until recently, conceptualizing children living in households with IPV as “witnesses”
rather than as “victims” has been the norm. A study by Callaghan, Alexander, Sixsmith, and
Chiara Fellin (2015), however, determined that child victims (ages 8 to 18) of coercive control
are direct victims, not passive “witnesses” or “collateral damage,” since their experiences can be
described as victimization using abusive control (p.1551). Harman, Kruk, and Hines stress the
importance of seeing coercive control in the form of parental alienation as a type of family
violence which specifically impacts children in the form of psychological abuse (2018). They
cite parental alienating behaviors “an unacknowledged form of family violence” (p. 1275).
Paramount to our understanding the impact of children being coercively controlled is the
recognition of coercive control as a form of child maltreatment. Indirect experiences, such as
seeing or hearing violent episodes, or being used as a “pawn” to hurt a parent, result in direct
damage to the child. We know that there are significant long-term psychological associations in
the lives of adults who experienced parental alienation as children, with vulnerabilities different
from those experienced by children in non-PSA situations. Nathanson, Shore, Tyrone, and
Rhatigan’s research (2012) found that psychological abuse is a predictor of Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). Additionally, children exposed to IPV are at a greater risk of both attachment
insecurity and internalizing/externalizing problems (Levendosky, Lannert, & Yalch, 2012).
Studies suggest that the risk of IPV (victimization or perpetration) may be carried
intergenerationally (Caron, Lafontaine & Bureau, 2018). Exposure to IPV may lead to a child’s
inability to regulate emotions to higher rates of aggression with adverse impact on mental health
$
and development, particularly as violence exposure becomes more extensive and as stressors in
the family increase (Graham-Bermann, Castor, Miller, & Howell, 2012), as one might experience
in PSA. Studies of long-term effects have shown that childhood exposure to IPV is associated
with increased risk for delinquency, greater mental health problems, and the potential for
intergenerational violence in dating and intimate partner relationships (Cater, Miller, Howell, &
Graham-Bermann, 2015). Loue (2005) describes psychological maltreatment as “the most
elusive and damaging of all types of maltreatment for a child” and represents “the core issue and
most destructive factor across all types of child abuse and neglect” (p. 311).
Post Separation Abuse and College Students Returning Home Due to COVID-19
Events that provoke stress, including natural disasters, pandemics, and economic
downturns, can increase the number of IPV incidences, with experiences of violence after
disasters appearing to be gendered, in that women experience increased rates of violence when
compared to men (Bell & Folkerth, 2015). A study completed by Josie Serrata (2019) concluded
that families affected by Hurricane Harvey who had already experienced IPV had higher rates of
both IPV, including child abuse during and after the hurricane. She also notes additional research
with a similar pattern of increased IPV after disasters, citing a study completed by Lauve-Moon
& Ferreira (2017) that found that those directly impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico were more than twice as likely to experience physical and emotional IPV.
Hurricane Katrina post-disaster saw an increase in IPV from 33.6% to 45.2% victimization rate
for women, and 36.7% to 43.1% for men (Schumacher, Coffey, Norris, Tracy, Clements, &
Galea, 2010). Specifically looking at young people, a study of 2000 adolescents who
experienced tornadoes in Tuscaloosa Alabama and Joplin Missouri in 2011 found that they had
significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation post-disaster when they had experienced IPV in
their homes pre-disaster (Zuromski, Resnick, Price, Gala, Kilpatrick, & Ruggiero, 2018), and
research by Sallouma (2011) suggests that exposure to prior trauma is related to increased
distress post-disaster. This finding demonstrates how an already vulnerable population may be at
greater risk of developing mental health issues post-disaster than children who have no exposure
to trauma.
Serrata affirms that we are seeing increases in IPV and mental health issues with the
pandemic, similar to those seen in the wake of other major disasters and crises. In addition, many
of the resources usually available to victims are no longer available during the pandemic, leaving
victims trapped in an escalating cycle of tension, power, and control. Pre-pandemic solutions,
including the ability to flee a violent situation by staying with a family member, going to a
shelter, or having access to the judicial system to file a protective order, are less available
(Abramson, 2020). Victims who have been able to acknowledge their abuse and seek support, or
who are preparing to seek support, are in a potentially dangerous situation by living with their
abusers, and this was true even without considering the current lockdown protocols. The “worst-
case” scenario has materialized (Fetters and Khazan, 2020).
When people feel powerless in one area of their lives, such as the AP does, and it is
compounded by the stressors of the current pandemic, they often seek to establish more
power over other areas of their lives. This is particularly dangerous in situations where coercive
control is the dominant pattern, since at its core coercive control is an effort by one to dominate
and establish psychological, emotional, physical, and sexual control over another (Wagers,
2020). IPV-perpetrating fathers may use opportunities that present themselves to victimize
children post-separation, such as physical custody arrangements or parenting time (Hardesty &
Ganong, 2006) which may include increased time during this pandemic.
Anecdotal evidence and early studies and reports from the United States, China, Brazil,
and Australia indicate an increase in IPV and child abuse due to isolation and quarantine. France
reported a 32‐ 36% increase in domestic abuse complaints following the implementation of self‐
isolation and quarantine measures (Reuters News Agency, 2020). China, the first country to
impose mass quarantine, saw reported domestic abuse incidents rise threefold in February 2020
compared to the previous year (Allen‐Ebrahimian, 2020). As Europe imposed quarantine
measures, the Italian government began commissioning hotels to provide shelter to the
increasing number of people fleeing abusive situations (Davies & Batha, 2020). In the United
States, IPV rate increases due to COVID-19 have been 21% to 35% (Wagers, 2020).
Holt and Elliffe (2020) note, “Covid-19 respects no boundaries” and suggest that perhaps
being in school, with possible exposure to the virus, is less dangerous for this population than
staying at home. School provides safety, and at least a temporary escape from the reality of
problems at home. Due to quarantine, many children are also missing the buffering effect of
extended family and the inability to spend time with people outside the household who are
positive influences in the child’s life. Even friends may be off limits, as well as employment;
those who are working or going to school may be doing so from home, which creates further
entrapment. During isolation, there are fewer opportunities for people living with family violence
to call for help. Isolation also helps to keep the abuse hidden with physical or emotional signs of
family violence and abuse less visible to others (Stark 2009). Finally, for some young adults
already reticent about seeking out support, telehealth, like online learning, is “not the same,” and
without school counseling services, there have been fewer interventions and support (Holt &
Elliffe, 2020).
As Callaghan, et al. (2015) observe, similar to adult victims, children victimized by
coercive control have a sense of constraint imposed on their lives, both prior to and post
separation, and they learn early on to monitor their speech and their space, remaining ever
“vigilant” and aware of the perpetrator’s mood. Children describe constant fear as a regular
feature of their lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, traumatizing symptoms may occur
simply with the knowledge of needing to quarantine in a coercively controlling environment. As
one college student and anonymous blogger for the Atlanta Journal Constitution writes:
Home is not that way [happy and with unconditional love] for me . Home is the place
where I first learned fear, pain, and heartbreak. It is the place I have suffered a great deal
of lovelessness, violence, and trauma. It is where I feel manipulated, hopeless, and
resigned to deep depression and suicidal thoughts. Home is dark for me (Downey, 2020).
In an IPV situation, and with children contending with PSA, typical support services are
minimal or entirely absent (Gramigna, 2020) and college students have their own set of unique
circumstances. The uncertainties surrounding COVID-19 heighten the risk of anxiety (Gramigna,
2020), and contending with IPV will add to these stressors. Suicide risk is higher for those who
have experienced violence, including child abuse, bullying, or sexual violence. Feelings of
isolation, depression, anxiety, and other emotional or financial stresses are known to raise the
risk for suicide also(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015).
Sheltering in place in a coercively controlling relationship, inclusive of PSA, may only
exacerbate these risk factors. Feelings of hopelessness are aggravated by lack of contact with the
outside world, lack of activity, and the increased rumination that tends to accompany long days
at home (Conrad, Rayala, Menon, & Vora, 2020). van Gelder, et al., (2020) describe how the
“perfect storm” has been created to instigate more family violence: the combination of isolation
with psychological and economic stressors, along with the potential increases in negative coping
mechanisms (e.g. substance abuse).
Due to COVID-19, college students can no longer access mental health services
confidentially, as they could have on campus (Zhai and Du, 2020). This lack of support may
exacerbate their psychological symptoms and increase some students’ risk for suicide and
substance abuse. These safety nets and safe zones have been removed during this lockdown
period, and according to Campbell (2020), the loss of these institutions is devastating, since they
provided critical emotional support and a reprieve from abusive home environments.
Due to this intense period of “sheltering in place” it can be assumed that many of these
young people, forced to acknowledge the coercive control by one parent against another, and/or
reexperience the coercive control that they were able to flee from by going off to college (or
summer internships, employment, etc.), will experience a compounded impact on their overall
mental health and well-being, this trauma the main outcome of IPV. When traumatic events have
occurred repeatedly and/or chronically, then a complex form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is
diagnosed, Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD). The incidences of this occurring
may increase among this population, with victims in a state of captivity, under the control of
perpetrators (Lewis-Herman, 1992).
COVID-19, Coercive Control, and Clinical Implications
Not “sheltering in place” with an abusive parent may mean making a choice to have no
relationship with that parenting. When the child chooses to create boundaries with the unhealthy
parent by sheltering instead with the TP (or elsewhere), the AP’s loss of control over the child
will manifest with psychologically abusive tactics such as verbal assaults, stonewalling
(complete ignoring of the child) or worse, discard, the same tactics used with the TP. Research
on the emotional maltreatment and/or psychological abuse of children tends to focus on minor
children; there is very little research specific to young adults who have witnessed the coercive
control of one parent, have become aware of their own victimization (coercive control) by the
offending parent, and are coming to terms with the recognition of the tactics used. Katz (2015)
acknowledges that much research on children’s experiences with domestic violence focuses on
physical abuse rather than on experiences contending with a coercively controlling parent. In a
study of 30 participants, including 15 children under the age of 15, Katz found that coercively
controlling tactics perpetrated by fathers/father-figures against mothers cause many of the same
consequences on the children as the adult victimized partner. If it takes an adult victim of IPV
seven attempts to leave an abusive relationship, one can only imagine the difficulty in doing so
as the child victim of the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the many particular pressures the
COVID-19 pandemic has imposed on families and college students returned home, the time is
ripe for addressing how to help victims of college-aged children who are victims of coercive
control within their families.
From the state level to the international level, including the World Health Organization,
authorities have provided information to support victims of IPV during COVID-19. The
Battered Women’s Justice Project (2020) discusses how skilled abusers find ways to use crises to
their advantage by confining family members at home, for example, interfering with children’s
visitation with the other parent using COVID-19 as an excuse. This is helpful information, but
again, not specific to the young adult victim who is sheltering in place with a coercively
controlling abuser. No longer eligible for child welfare services, this victim also lacks access to
campus support services, nor any direct support that is focused on his/her population, and is
grieving the loss of independent living that college affords. Now isolated, the burden of
!
contending with this abusive behavior and being “used as a weapon” against the TP wreaks
havoc on the mental health of this young adult.
%&'(%')%*
+,
-+)'),+%,'
,+)'%
+)+')'%),./'),%/'
&+*'0%'(*)
+)%/,,%*,1)
**2$3*'
/'),&+*'
(*)0404'&
-+,5+),',
0*&&%'),/%)**'
+)%0*&,'/&*41
6%72$"38()%/'
'*12$3,%9%9
"
,%&+)%/,,%*,
5)''*4,,,'
(%**9'
+)+')'%),./'),
%9'%'
+)+')'%),:./'),:,7**
';*4')'
()&+*4
'5('&%)')%<
26%7$"+1#
,=*''5,'4$
+)'(+',/)%&'>
&%'), %/')(*)
2&%,'$?39%
,+)'/)%&%&,'(5%*(
+)+')'%),+)'(+'
,&,')(')')59,
#
It is apparent that, like COVID-19, IPV respects no boundaries — whether of geography,
religion, class, or culture. Some of the research on IPV and COVID-19 recommends that victims
not leave unless it comes to a crisis point, referencing the risk factors when a woman decides to
leave. Instead, IPV supportive websites ask victims to reach out to support personnel before
making the decision to leave during this time (Victim Support, 2020). Such recommendations
are quite startling, to say the least, and clinicians working with adult clients who have had
experiences of coercive control need to be aware of the best practices being utilized to support
victims, such as the advice aforementioned about leaving the situation during this quarantine
time.
Clinicians also need to be cognizant of the client’s children being victimized. The
heightened use of the children and alienation that may occur due to PSA must be addressed and
anticipated. Educating coercive control victims on how their own experiences of this abuse may
be replicated in their children is imperative to ensure that this insidious abuse is not missed. As
the research illustrates, children who experience these abuses are victims, and as such may not
recognize their abuse. This may leave them unable to process how long-standing psychological
abuse inclusive of controlling behaviors was used against them. Their C-PTSD will manifest in
maladaptive coping schemas unless these children are given a safe environment in which to
process their experiences. Having a mentally stable, healthy parent that is patient and consistent,
providing unconditional positive regard is of primary importance, yet difficult after possible
parental alienation and rejection. Educating and supporting the “healthy” parent on how best to
support the child(ren) and heal herself offers the best hope for mitigating significant traumatic
experiences.
Conclusion
It will be some time before we understand the impact of the pandemic on the rates and
nature of IPV, but it is critical to acknowledge the experiences of the young adults who are
victims of coercive control, seen all too often in PSA. As Miller-Graff explains (2020), the
pandemic has brought to the forefront the many gaps in our support services for victims of IPV,
specifically, the lack of resources and research to support the young adult victims of this abuse.
Further research to help understand and address the very toxic circumstances of children being
“used as pawns” for the sake of an abusive parent, is paramount. A greater awareness of coercive
control and how children of all ages are often targeted is necessary, as is making resources
readily available for this marginalized population, during COVID-19, post-COVID-19 and into
the future.
%&'(%')%*
+,
$
-+)'),+%,'
,+)'%
+)+')'%),./'),%/'
&+*'0%'(*)
+)%/,,%*,1)
**2$3*'
/'),&+*'
(*)0404'&
-+,5+),',
0*&&%'),/%)**'
+)%0*&,'/&*41
6%72$"38()%/'
'*12$3,%9%9
,%&+)%/,,%*,
5)''*4,,,'
(%**9'
+)+')'%),./'),
%9'%'
+)+')'%),:./'),:,7**
';*4')'
()&+*4
'5('&%)')%<
26%7$"+1#
,=*''5,'4$
+)'(+',/)%&'>
&%'), %/')(*)
2&%,'$?39%
,+)'/)%&%&,'(5%*(
+)+')'%),+)'(+'
,&,')(')')5
References
Abramson, Ashley. (2020, April 18). “How COVID-19 may increase domestic violence and child
abuse”. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/covid-19/domestic-violence-child-
abuse.
Adhia, Avanti, Austin, Bryn, S., Fitzmaurice, Garrett, M., & Hemenway David. (2019, January).
The role of intimate partner violence in homicides of children aged 2-14 Years. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(1):38-46. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.08.028.-
Allen‐Ebrahimian, B. (2020). China’s Domestic Violence Epidemic, Axios. Retrieved from
https://www.axios.com/china-domestic-violencecoronavirus-quarantine-7b00c3ba-35bc-
4d16-afdd-b76ecfb28882.html.
Baker, Amy. (2005, January). Parental alienation strategies: A qualitative study of adults who
experienced parental alienation as a child. American Journal of Forensic Psychology,
23(4):41-63.
Baker, Amy, J. & Ben-Ami, Naomi. (2011, October 27). To turn a child against a parent is to turn
a child against himself: the direct and indirect effects of exposure to parental alienation
strategies on self-esteem and well-being. Divorce and Remarriage, 52(7): 427-489. DOI:
10/1080/10502556.2011.609424.
Battered Women’s Justice Project (2020, May 13). COVID-19, Coercive Control, and Shared
Parenting. Retrieved from https://www.bwjp.org/news/covid-coercive-control-shared-
parenting.html.
Bell, S.A., & Folkerth, L.A. (2016). Women’s mental health and intimate partner violence
following natural disaster: A scoping review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 31(6),
648-657. doi:10.1017/S1049023X16000911
8&%&@87)&4A112$3*%')&(%))*',%/
(*%%-+%,)'%+)'**'%%*',*/,B((4
9**0 The American Journal of Family Therapy, 4023!
#$1$#$.$!#"1$1!$$!1
Bernet, William, Gregory, Nilgun, Reay, Kathleen, & Rohner, Ronald. (2017, August). An
objective measure of splitting in parental alienation: The parental acceptance-rejection
questionnaire. Journal of Forensic Science, 63 (3): DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13625.
Binggeli N, Hart S, Brassard M. (2001). Psychological Maltreatment of Children. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Bourget, Dominique, Grace, Jennifer, & Whitehurst Laurie. (2007). A review of maternal and
paternal filicide. American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 35(1):74–82.
Callighan, Jane, E. Alexander, Joanne, H. Sixsmith, Judith, & Chiara Fellin, Lisa. (2015,
December 10). Beyond “Witnessing”: Children’s experiences of coercive control in
domestic violence and abuse. Interpersonal Violence, 33 (1): 1551-1581.
DOI:10.1177/0886260515618946.
Campbell, A. M. (2020, December 2). An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid‐19
pandemic: Strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Forensic Science
International: Reports, 2. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100089.
Caron, Angela, Lafontaine, Marie-France, & Bureau, Jean-François. (2018) Exploring the
Relationship Between Child Maltreatment, Intimate Partner Violence Victimization, and
Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors. Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
27:7, 759-776, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2017.1410746.
Cater, Asa, K., Miller, Laura, E., Howell, Katherine, H., & Graham-Bermann, Sandra, A. (2015,
April). Childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and adult mental health
problems: Relationships with gender and age of exposure. Family Violence, 30: 875-886.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9703-0.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey: 2015 Date Brief – Updated Release. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Preventing Intimate Partner Violence [fact
sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact/html.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, July 1). Coronavirus Disease COVID-19:
Support for Teens and Young Adults. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/stress-coping/young-adults.html.
Conrad, Rachel, Rayala, Harika, Menon, Meera, & Vora, Kruti. (2020, March 23). Universities’
Response to Supporting Mental Health of College Students During the COVID-19
Pandemic. The Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/universities-response-supporting-mental-health-
college-students-during-covid-19-pandemic.
Davies, S. & Batha, E. (2020). Europe braces for domestic abuse 'perfect storm' amid
coronavirus lockdown. Thomas Reuters Foundation News. Retrieved from
https://news.trust.org/item/20200326160316-7l0uf.
Domestic Abuse Shelter, Inc. (n.d). Definition of Domestic Violence. Retrieved from
https://domesticabuseshelter.org/domestic-violence/.
Downey, Maureen. (2020, March 25). The Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Getting Schooled Blog: Campuses sent students home for their safety, but some are returning to
family violence rather than family support. (Anonymous blogger). Retrieved from
https://www.ajc.com/blog/get-schooled/coronavirus-closings-when-college-students-
must-back-abusive-homes/1oSNzpzWPP6Qoe12BcBXAN/.
Fetters, Ashley & Khazan, Olga. (2020, May 8). “The Worst Situation Imaginable for Family
Violence. All over the United States, adults and children have been quarantined for
weeks with people who hurt them”. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/challenge-helping-abuse-victims-
during-quarantine/611272/.
Gardner, Richard, A. (1998). Recommendations for dealing with parents who induce a parental
alienation syndrome in their children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28, 1–21.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., Castor, L., Miller, L. E., & Howell, K. H. (2012). The impact of
additional traumatic events to trauma symptoms and PTSD in children exposed to
intimate partner violence (IPV). Traumatic Stress, 25(4), 393–400.
DOI:10.1002/jts.21724.
Gramigna, Joe. (2020, April 8). “COVID-19’s mental health effects by age group: Children,
college students, working-age adults, and older adults”. Retrieved from
https://www.healio.com/news/psychiatry/20200408/covid19s-mental-health-effects-by-
age-group-children-college-students-workingage/adults-and-older-ad.
Hamby, Sherry, Finkelhor, David, Turner, Heather, Ormond, Richard. (2011, October).
Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence and Other Family Violence. [Juvenile
Justice Bulletin]. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232272.pdf.
Hardesty, J.L., Ganong, L.H. (2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-
!
parenting with abusive former husbands. Social and Personal
Relationships,23(4):543–563.
Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An
unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12): 1275–1299.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175.
Holt, Stephanie & Elliffe, Ruth. (2020, June 2). Like COVID-19, child domestic abuse respects
no boundaries. Retrieved from https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/like-covid-19-
child-domestic-abuse-respects-no-boundaries/.
Jeffries, Samantha. (2016, March 10). Review. In the best interests of the abuser: Coercive
control, child custody proceedings, and the “expert” assessments that guide judicial
determinations. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Institute of
Criminology, Griffith University, Australia.
Katz, Emma.(2016). Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic
violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2422.
Kelly, Joann, B. & Johnston, Janet, R. (2001, July). The alienated child: A reformulation of
parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-
1617.2001.tb00609.x.
Kelly, Liz, Sharp-Jeffs, Nicola, and Klein, Renate. (2014). Finding the costs of freedom: How
women and their children rebuild their lives after domestic violence. London, England:
Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit and Solace Women’s Aid. Retrieved from .
http://solacewomensaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SWA-Finding-Costs-of-
Freedom-Report.pdf.
"
Lammers Marianne, Ritchie Jane, & Robertson, Neville. (2005). Women’s experience of
emotional abuse in intimate relationships: A qualitative study. Journal of Emotional
Abuse. 2005;5(1):29–64. DOI: 10.1300/J135v05n01_02.
Lauve-Moon, K., & Ferreira, R.J. (2017). An exploratory investigation: Post-disaster predictors
of intimate partner violence. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45, 124–135. DOI:
10.1007/s10615-015-0572-z.
Lewis-Herman, Judith. (1992, July). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and
repeated trauma. Traumatic Stress, 5 (3): 377-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.
2490050305.
Levendosky, Alytia, Lannert, Brittany, Yalch, Matthew. (2012). The effects of intimate partner
violence on women and child survivors: An attachment perspective. Psychodynamic
Psychiatry, 40(3): 397-433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2012.40.3.397.
Loue, Sana, J.D. (2005). Redefining the emotional and psychological abuse and maltreatment
of children, Journal of Legal Medicine, 26(3): 311-337. DOI:
10.1080/01947640500218315.
Miller-Graff, Laura. (2020, June 2). Intimate partner violence: COVID-19 and our collective,
ongoing responsibility to families. Dignity & Development. Retrieved from
https://keough.nd.edu/intimate-partner-violence-covid-19-and-our-collective-ongoing-
responsibility-to-families/.
Nathanson, A. M., Shorey, R. C., Tirone, V., & Rhatigan, D. L. (2012). The prevalence of
mental health disorders in a community sample of female victims of intimate partner
violence. Journal of Partner Abuse, 3(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-
6560.3.1.59.
#
The National Domestic Violence Hotline. (2013, June 10). “50 Obstacles to Leaving”. Retrieved
from https://www.thehotline.org/2013/06/10/50-obstacles-to-leaving-1-10/.
Price, Leigh. (2014) Critical realist versus mainstream interdisciplinary. Critical
Realism, 13:1, 52-76, DOI: 10.1179/1476743013Z.00000000019.
Reuters News Agency (2020, April 7)). As domestic abuse rises in lockdown, France to fund
hotel rooms. Aljazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/
domestic-abuse-rises-lockdown-france-fund-hotel-rooms-200331074110199.html.
Sallouma, A., Carter, P., Burch, B., Garfinkel, A., & Overstreet, S. (2011). Impact of exposure to
community violence, hurricane Katrina, and hurricane Gustav on post-traumatic stress
and depressive symptoms among school age children. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(1),
27-42. DOI: 10.1080/10615801003703193.
Schumacher, J.A., Coffey, S.F., Norris, F.H., Tracy, M., Clements, K., & Galea, S. (2010).
Intimate partner violence and hurricane Katrina: Predictors and associated mental health
outcomes. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 588- 603. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.588.
Serrata, Josephine, Ph.D., Hurtado Alvarado, Gabriela, Ph.D. (2019, August 23). Texas Council
on Family Violence. Understanding the Impact of Hurricane Harvey on Family Violence
Survivors in Texas and Those Who Serve Them. Retrieved from https://tcfv.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/Hurricane-Harvey-Report-FINAL-and-APPROVED-as-of-
060619.pdf.
Sharp-Jeffs, Nicola, Kelly, Liz, & Klein, Renate. (2017, February 2). Long journeys toward
freedom: The relationship between coercive control and space for action—
measurement and emerging evidence. Violence Against Women, 24(2):163-
185. DOI: 10.1177/1077801216686199.
Soenens, Bart, Vansteenkiste. (2009, March 23). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of
parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination
theory. Developmental Review, 30: 74-99.
Stark, Evan. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stark, Evan. (2009, October). Rethinking Coercive Control. Violence Against
Women, 15. 1509-1525. DOI: 10.1177/1077801209347452. p. 1510.
Stark, Evan. (2012). Re-presenting battered women: Coercive control and the defense of liberty.
[Paper Presentation]. Violence Against Women : Complex Realities and New Issues in a
Changing World. Les Presses de l’Université du Québec. Rutgers School of Public
Affairs and Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.stopvaw.org/uploads/evan_stark_article_final_100812.pdf.
Stark, Evan. (2018). Personal interview with New York State Office for the
Prevention of Domestic Violence. Retrieved from
https://opdv.ny.gov/professionals/abusers/coercivecontrol.html.
Sweet, Paige, L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological
Review, 84(5): 851-875. DOI: 10:1177/0003122419874843.
van Gelder, N., Peterman, A., Potts, A., O'Donnell, M., Thompson, K. , Shah, N., and Oertelt‐
Prigione, S. (2020, April 19). COVID‐19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase
the risk of intimate partner violence. EClinicalMedicine. DOI:
10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100348.
$
Victim Support. (2020, April 3). Domestic abuse or coercive control during Covid-19. Retrieved from
https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/crime-info/types-crime/domestic-abuse/living-
domestic-abuse-or-coercive-control-during-coronavirus.
World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and Addressing Violence Against Women.
Retrieved from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/.
WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf?sequence=1.
Wagers, S. (2020). Domestic violence growing in wake of coronavirus outbreak. The
Conversation. Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/domestic-violence-growing-
in-wake-of-coronavirus-outbreak-135598.
Women’s Aid. (n.d.) What is Coercive Control? Retrieved from https://www.womensaid.org.uk/
/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/coercive-control/.
Violence, 28:547–560.
DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9528-7.
Zhai, Yusen & Du, Xue. (2020, June). Addressing collegiate mental health amid COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 288, 113003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113003.
Zuromski, K.L., Resnick, H., Price, M., Gala, S., Kilpatrick, D.G., & Ruggiero, K. (2018).
Suicidal ideation among adolescents following natural disaster: The Role of Prior
Interpersonal Violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,
1-5. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000365.
