Coercive Control in the Courtroom: the Legal Abuse Scale (LAS)

May combine two claims.

Clemente et al. legal harassment scale is a self-report measure validated with 209 fathers and mothers undergoing family law litigation in Spain.

“A second existing measure is the legal harassment scale, a self-report measure validated with a combined sample of 209 fathers and mothers undergoing family law litigation in Spain (Clemente et al., 2019).”

• cites Clemente et al., 2019 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

The CAS-SF showed strong internal consistency in its original validation sample (α=0.94) and adequate internal consistency in the current study (α=0.78).

“This measure, validated in a sample of 6,278 Canadian women, showed strong internal consistency (α = 0.94) with this original sample (Ford-Gilboe et al., 2016) and adequate internal consistency in the current study (α = 0.78).”

• cites Ford-Gilboe et al., 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The Methods report a pooled sample of 6,278 women, and Results > Phase 2 report strong internal consistency (α=0.942) for the brief scale. However, that α was calculated in the development subset (n=4,143), not the entire 6,278-woman sample. The current study’s α=0.78 is the citing authors’ own result, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

The LAS is a novel contribution that builds on earlier measures, uses extensive interviewing, piloting, and consultation with interdisciplinary experts including survivor-mothers, and was evaluated in a survey of family court-involved survivor-mothers.

“The LAS is a novel contribution to the literature in that it builds on previous measures (e.g., Clemente et al., 2019; Hines et al., 2015; Rivera et al., 2018), relies on extensive interviewing, piloting, and consultation with interdisciplinary experts, including survivor-mothers, and was evaluated in the context of a survey of survivor-mothers involved in family court.”

• cites Clemente et al., 2019 sourceSupported
• cites Hines et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Rivera et al., 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

A second expert consultation with 10 experts rated items as Essential, Important, or Not Important; only items rated Essential and/or Important by the majority were retained, yielding 27 items administered.

“To reduce the number of items further, the first author sought a second round of consultation with 10 experts who were asked to rate each item as “Essential,” “Important” or “Not Important” following Ford-Gilboe and colleagues (2016).”

• Also stated in: § Measures · plain

  “We retained only those items that were rated as “Essential” and/or “Important” by the majority of experts. This process resulted in a final list of 27 items that were administered to participants (see Appendix Table 5).”

• cites Ford-Gilboe and colleagues (2016) sourceSupported

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Self-reported yes/no answers about the other parent's legal behaviors accurately represent the occurrence of legal abuse.

May combine two claims.

Social power is critical in family court, and women, especially women of color, can face damaging stereotypes that reduce their credibility and increase their vulnerability to a partner's control.

“Social power plays a critical role in family court: Epstein and Goodman (2019) describe the ways women, and especially women of color, may be subject to dangerous stereotypes such as the hysterical White woman, the angry Black woman, the gold digger, the manipulator in a way that damages their credibility and makes them further vulnerable to a partner’s control.”

• cites Epstein and Goodman (2019)Partly supported

  The sections on family-court custody disputes and Social Location say that stereotypes can discredit survivor-mothers and that Black women risk being doubly disbelieved. The section on the impact of credibility discounts describes institutional disbelief compounding an abusive partner’s discrediting of a survivor. The paper discusses hysterical women, gold diggers, and alleged manipulation, but the passages do not identify the specific racialized examples “hysterical White woman” and “angry Black woman.” (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating the correlation matrix was suitable for EFA.

“Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), suggesting that the correlation matrix was adequate for conducting an EFA (Watkins, 2018).”

• cites Watkins, 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Infit and outfit statistics were within the 0.5-1.5 range considered productive for measurement, indicating the data's variance matched the Rasch model's prediction.

“Infit and outfit statistics fell within the range (0.5–1.5) considered productive for measurement (Linacre, 2002), indicating that the variance in the data were consistent with the Rasch model’s prediction (Mallinckrodt et al., 2016).”

• cites Linacre, 2002Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Mallinckrodt et al., 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Prior psychological, physical, and sexual IPV from the other parent was positively and significantly correlated with the total LAS (r = .38), Harm to Self/Motherhood (r = .30), and Harm to Finances (r = .37).

“Further, prior psychological, physical, and sexual IPV from the other parent correlated positively and significantly with the total LAS (r = .38, p < .001), Harm to Self/Motherhood subscale (0.30, p < .001), and Harm to Finances subscale (r = .37, p < .001).”

May combine two claims.

Little's MCAR test was not significant, X2(248)=235.48, p=.706, which suggested the data were missing completely at random.

“Little’s MCAR test was nonsignificant, X2 (248) = 235.48, p = .706, suggesting that data were missing completely at random (Little, 1988).”

• cites Little, 1988 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The sample comprised 222 mothers who were parents of a child under 18, spoke English or Spanish, and were involved in a family law case currently or within past 1-2 years with another parent who was abusive (participants endorsed fear of that parent).

“The sample included in the present study was comprised of 222 mothers who met the following eligibility criteria: Parent of a child under age 18 who spoke English or Spanish and was involved in a family law case currently or within the past one to two years with another parent who was abusive (i.e., participants endorsed having been afraid of this other parent).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A participant's endorsement of fear of the other parent is sufficient to classify that parent as abusive for study eligibility.

May combine two claims.

All participants reported at least one act of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse from the other parent, with rates of 97.7%, 81.5%, and 63.5% respectively.

“All participants endorsed experiencing one or more acts of psychological (97.7%), physical (81.5%), and/or sexual (63.5%) abuse from the other parent.”

May combine two claims.

Missing values made up 0.65% of all data, with a range from 0% on the LAS to 2.3% on the Composite Abuse Scale.

“Missing data were minimal, accounting for 0.65% of overall values (0% on the LAS to 2.3% on the Composite Abuse Scale).”

May combine two claims.

The Use of Children scale was positively and significantly correlated with the total LAS (r = .42), Harm to Self/Motherhood (r = .42), and Harm to Finances (r = .23).

“Specifically, the Use of Children scale correlated positively and significantly with the total LAS (r = .42, p < .001), Harm to Self/Motherhood subscale (r = .42, p < .001), and Harm to Finances subscale (r = .23, p < .001).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Because all items correlated strongly enough with the total scale to show potential for factorability, no items were removed before the first EFA.

“Based on preliminary correlational analyses, we did not remove any items prior to conducting an initial EFA, as all correlated highly enough with the total scale to demonstrate the potential for factorability.”

May combine two claims.

Item z-scores showed a balance of easy and hard items, with values both above and below zero.

“Item z-scores, representing item endorsabilty (i.e., difficulty) indicated a balance of “easy” and “hard” items (i.e., z-scores falling both above and below 0) (Mallinckrodt & Tekie, 2016).”

• cites Mallinckrodt & Tekie, 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Item-total correlations were significant and ranged from 0.28 to 0.68.

“Item total correlations were significant and ranged from 0.28 to 0.68.”

May combine two claims.

No items were significant in the Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis, so differential item functioning was not supported.

“As no items reached significance, DIF was not supported.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The LAS will enable systematic assessment of legal abuse in family court and other legal proceedings, expand research on this coercive control form, and support policy and practice development.

“The LAS is a tool that will enable systematic assessment of legal abuse in family court and other legal proceedings, an expansion of research on this form of coercive control, and further development of policy and practice that recognizes and responds to it.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Self-reported yes/no answers about the other parent's legal behaviors accurately represent the occurrence of legal abuse.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Research on legal abuse's nature and consequences has been hampered by lack of rigorous definition and measurement.

“Despite the significance of potential legal abuse, research into its nature and consequences has been hampered by the absence of a rigorous way to define and measure it.”

May combine two claims.

Judges and court evaluators may overlook or misunderstand legal abuse, leading to determinations that place children and protective parents in further danger.

“Yet, judges and court evaluators may overlook (Laing & Heward-Belle, 2020) and/or misunderstand (Haselschwerdt et al., 2011, 2020; Meier, 2009; Saunders et al., 2013; Stark, 2010) this form of abuse, resulting in determinations that place children and their protective parent in further danger (DeKeseredy et al., 2017; Meier & Dickson, 2017; Meier, 2020, 2021).”

• cites Laing & Heward-Belle, 2020Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Haselschwerdt et al., 2011, 2020Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Meier, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Because a partner who abuses the other parent may also abuse children, separation may increase risk of harm to children.

“Further, because the same person who abuses one’s partner in a household may also abuse their children (Bancroft et al., 2012), separation may involve an increased risk of harm to the children (Hayes, 2017).”

• cites Bancroft et al., 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Hayes, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

For survivors with children, separation requires addressing child custody, often involving facing the abuser in court.

“For survivors who have children, separation necessitates addressing child custody, which can be terrifying as it often entails facing the person who abused them in court (Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Walker et al., 2004).”

• cites Hardesty & Ganong, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Walker et al., 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Upon separation, IPV survivors face heightened risk of violence and diminished social and economic resources.

“Upon separation, survivors face a heightened risk of violence and diminished social and economic resources (DeKeseredy et al., 2017; Hardesty, 2002; Thomas et al., 2015).”

• cites DeKeseredy et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Hardesty, 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Thomas et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Coercive control has a strategic intelligence such that discrete physical violence acts may anchor a broader pattern of domination.

“As Evan Stark, a foundational thinker in this area, has written, coercive control has a “strategic intelligence” such that apparently discrete acts of physical violence may anchor a broader pattern of domination (p. 198, Stark 2007).”

• cites Stark 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A self-report scale of legal and administrative aggression was developed to capture men's experiences of partners' manipulation of legal and other administrative systems.

“One is a self-report scale of legal and administrative aggression, developed to capture men’s experiences of their partners’ manipulation of legal and other administrative systems (Hines et al., 2015).”

• cites Hines et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

This measure uses non-specific language and was devised for a different population and cultural context.

“Although this measure offers a novel contribution to the literature, it uses non-specific language (e.g., “I get verbally insulted” without clarification of who – ex-partners, judges, or lawyers — is doing the insulting) and was devised to attend to this issue in a different population and cultural context from the current study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Because it was validated with men, the authors note the phenomenon likely manifests differently for women.

“Further, because it was validated with a sample of men, the authors note that this phenomenon likely manifests differently for women (Hines et al., 2015).”

• cites Hines et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Qualitative research has documented mechanisms of legal abuse including forced face-to-face contact, attacks on parental rights or visitation, threats to children's safety, public denigration of parenting, and financial abuse.

“Thus, qualitative research has documented the mechanisms through which partners use legal abuse including by forcing survivors into distressing face-to-face contact through court proceedings (Elizabeth, 2017; Miller & Smolter, 2011; Przekop, 2011), attacking the survivor’s parental rights or visitation time (Toews & Bermea, 2017; Watson & Ancis, 2013; Ward, 2016)”

• cites Elizabeth, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Toews & Bermea, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Watson & Ancis, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Parents using this abuse may lie about finances, hide assets, or change jobs to avoid sharing resources.

“Parents who use this form of abuse may lie about finances, hide assets, or change jobs in order to avoid sharing resources (Goldstein, 2010; Przekop, 2011; Watson & Ancis, 2013).”

• cites Goldstein, 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Przekop, 2011Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Watson & Ancis, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Ex-partners can use financial abuse as a control tool in court, including modifying child support, seeking full custody to avoid payment, excessive court dates, or refusing to pay.

“Finally, ex-partners can use financial abuse as a tool of control in court (Elizabeth, 2017). They can seek to modify child support, seek full custody so that they will not be required to pay anything, make excessive court dates to negotiate it, or simply refuse to pay it at all (Przekop, 2011; Toews & Bermea, 2017; Watson & Ancis, 2013).”

• cites Elizabeth, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Przekop, 2011Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Toews & Bermea, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

A psychometrically valid measure of legal abuse including these elements would help recognize coercive control in post-separation legal cases and enhance knowledge of its features and costs.

“A psychometrically valid measure of legal abuse that includes each of these elements would be a step towards enabling the recognition of coercive control in post-separation legal cases and enhancing current knowledge of its features and costs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Rivera et al. procedural abuse measure defines procedural abuse as use of legal means, systems, or procedures to perpetrate abuse.

“The third relevant measure assesses procedural abuse, defined as “the use of legal means, systems, or procedures to perpetrate abuse” (Rivera et al., 2018, p. 2786).”

• cites Rivera et al., 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Efforts to measure legal abuse quantitatively are still in nascent stages.

“Yet, efforts to measure the phenomenon of legal abuse quantitatively are still in nascent stages.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Miller and Smolter proposed paper abuse as frivolous legal motions extending traditional IPV tactics.

“In one of the first papers on the subject of legal abuse, Miller and Smolter (2011) proposed the existence of “paper abuse,” defined as the use of “frivolous” legal motions that are an “extension of traditional [intimate partner abuse] tactics” (p. 647).”

• cites Miller and Smolter (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The survey items were piloted to identify and eliminate ambiguous language.

“After a draft of the survey was completed, the items were piloted to identify and eliminate potential ambiguous language (Heppner et al., 2015).”

• cites Heppner et al., 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Three survivor-mothers who had sought child custody reviewed the English survey, and the survey was edited based on their feedback before distribution.

“After another round of editing, three survivors who are also mothers who had sought child custody in family court reviewed an English version of the survey. Based on their feedback on clarity of item wording, the survey was edited a final time before being distributed to participants.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The sample of 40 survivor-mothers was too small to establish the measure's psychometric validity, and authors note need for more research.

“However, the sample of 40 survivor-mothers was too small to establish the measure’s psychometric validity, and the authors note the need for more research that focuses on legal abuse among this population.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Three research assistants reviewed the survey for clarity and estimated completion time.

“Three research assistants went through the survey in depth to check for clarity of items and to provide an estimate for the amount of time it would take to complete.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The data collection methods were designed to be trauma-informed.

“Finally, as we surveyed survivors, many of whom were in the midst of stressful, ongoing family law cases, we took care to ensure that our data collection methods were trauma-informed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The study used validity checks-IP addresses, referral sources, and response consistency-to identify and remove 75 invalid responses.

“Among the remaining 310 responses, 75 were determined to be invalid according to a series of validity checks (i.e., examining participants’ ip addresses, referral sources, and consistency in responses) and were removed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study tried to reduce potential bias by recruiting from multiple agency types and listservs, including domestic violence agencies to reach survivors without legal representation.

“We attempted to mitigate the resulting potential bias by recruiting from multiple types of agencies and listservs (e.g., we were able to recruit survivors without legal representation by seeking referrals from domestic violence agencies).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The draft measure was refined through consultation with 23 experts from law, advocacy, mental health, survivor-mothers, and research, yielding 50 items.

“Once we had developed a draft of the measure, we refined it over the course of the first author’s ongoing consultation with 23 experts including eight family law attorneys, three domestic violence advocates, two mental health practitioners, three survivor-mothers who have been through family court, and seven researchers from social science and legal disciplines (DeVellis, 2017).”

• Also stated in: § Measures · plain

  “This process resulted in 50 items.”

• cites DeVellis, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

LAS items were generated from three sources: interviews from a prior qualitative study with 19 survivors, a review of existing research, and a review of prior measures.

“we used three sources of information to generate and refine a face valid set of items for the LAS: Interviews conducted in the context of a previous qualitative study involving 19 survivors who had sought child custody”

• Also stated in: § Measures · plain

  “a review of existing research, and a review of prior measures.”

• cites Gutowski & Goodman, 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Self-reported yes/no answers about the other parent's legal behaviors accurately represent the occurrence of legal abuse.

May combine two claims.

The Use of Children Scale showed good internal consistency in a previous study (α=0.88) and in the current study (α=0.88).

“This measure showed good internal consistency both in a previous study of 156 women survivors (α = 0.88; Beeble et al., 2007) and in the current study (α = 0.88).”

• cites Beeble et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The sample was a convenience sample, and participants were referred by attorneys and practitioners who responded to professional listserv postings.

“Additionally, the sample was a convenience sample and participants were referred by attorneys and practitioners who responded to postings on professional listservs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Thirteen respondents with significant attrition who completed no LAS items were removed casewise before analysis.

“Of the 235 respondents who remained, 13 had significant attrition and did not complete any of the items on the LAS so were removed casewise prior to conducting analyses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Two Spanish-speaking researchers with IPV and translation expertise translated the survey into Spanish and back-translated it, aiming for consistent meaning across Spanish dialects.

“Two Spanish-speaking IPV researchers with translation expertise translated and back-translated (Heppner et al., 2015) the survey from English to Spanish with attention to consistency of meaning in the two languages and across dialects of Spanish.”

• cites Heppner et al., 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The study created the LAS, a 14-item psychometrically sound measure of legal abuse designed to assess survivor-mothers' perceptions in family law processes.

“To fill this critical gap, this study created the Legal Abuse Scale (LAS), a 14-item psychometrically sound measure of legal abuse designed to assess the perceptions of survivor-mothers involved in family law processes (see Appendix Tables 3 and 4 for English and Spanish versions of the LAS).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The factors underlying the legal abuse items were correlated with one another.

May combine two claims.

Legal abuse and its subscales were significantly associated with IPV and with using children to perpetrate abuse, which supports the measure's validity.

“Supporting the measure’s validity, legal abuse and its subscales were significantly associated with IPV and use of children to perpetrate abuse.”

May combine two claims.

The 14-item LAS treats legal abuse as a form of coercive control and captures specific ways ex-partners use post-separation legal processes to control survivor-mothers.

“The 14-item LAS conceptualizes legal abuse as a form of coercive control and reflects the specific mechanisms through which ex-partners use post-separation legal processes to exert control over survivor-mothers.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The factors underlying the legal abuse items were correlated with one another.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

By operationalizing the behaviors that make up legal abuse, the LAS gives legal professionals a tool to identify this form of coercive control.

“By operationalizing the specific behaviors that constitute legal abuse, the LAS offers a tool that legal professionals can use to identify this form of coercive control, a first step toward putting an end to it.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The new measure expands opportunities to uncover the features and costs of legal abuse and to make these dynamics explicit in courtrooms.

“By illuminating the often unacknowledged abuse dynamics taking place in family courts across the country, this new measure expands opportunities to further uncover the features and costs of legal abuse and address the urgent need to make these dynamics explicit in our courtrooms.”