Reactive Abuse or Reactive Defense? How Mislabeling Harms DV Victims

A recent case involving Paula, a woman married to a Metropolitan police officer, raises critical questions about the nature of coercive control, gaslighting, and what is often inaccurately termed ‘reactive abuse.’

The Guardian reports that for more than a decade, Paula endured escalating abusive behaviors, including physical assaults. On one occasion, her husband attacked her with a knife. Alongside the violence, Paula’s husband covertly filmed her 24 hours a day for several years, turning her home into a surveillance nightmare. He would intentionally provoke Paula so that he could capture her emotional reactions on camera—moments that he later manipulated to discredit her.

“He’d provoke me and I would shout back while he sat there calmly because he knew the cameras were on. He wouldn’t let me sleep at night, so at times I was irritable with my child. He edited my worst moments on film into a montage and had me arrested for child cruelty,” Paula recalls.

Her husband’s careful manipulation of the footage led to Paula’s arrest and limited access to her children. For months, she was only allowed two supervised visits with her child each week. The officer investigating the case didn’t even watch the footage before presenting it in court, further highlighting the imbalance in how the police handled the allegations against Paula compared to her husband. Three years on, Paula is still fighting for more custody of her child.

The Myth of Reactive Abuse

I strongly believe that the term ‘reactive abuse’ misrepresents what actually occurs in cases like Paula’s. Typically, it refers to a victim’s defensive responses to ongoing abuse, such as emotional outbursts or physical retaliation after being provoked. This terminology unfairly shifts the blame onto the victim, suggesting their reactions are abusive in themselves.

In reality, these responses should be understood as ‘reactive defense,’ a natural and often unavoidable reaction to sustained emotional, psychological, or physical torment. Paula’s emotional outbursts were reactions to years of sleep deprivation, gaslighting, and calculated provocations. Labeling this as ‘abuse’ ignores the power dynamics at play and overlooks the manipulative environment that led to her reactions.

Abusers often exploit their partner’s reactions to their advantage. By provoking their victims into emotional or aggressive responses, they can twist the narrative to appear as though they are the ones being victimized. In Paula’s case, her ex-husband used the footage of her outbursts to claim she was unstable and an unfit mother. By editing and presenting only Paula’s emotional reactions, her ex-husband successfully portrayed her as unstable, erasing the context of his relentless provocations.

Gaslighting and Manipulation in Reactive Defense

Paula’s case highlights the manipulative tactic of gaslighting, where abusers distort reality to gain control. This gaslighting tactic is common in cases of coercive control. It further disempowers victims by making them doubt their own reality, trapping them in a cycle of self-blame and confusion.

Gaslighting is a particularly harmful aspect of coercive control because it not only affects the victim’s emotional state but also how outsiders—like courts and authorities—perceive the situation. Paula’s husband manipulated the family court system to make it seem as though her reactions to abuse were the real problem, diverting attention from his own abusive behaviors.

As seen in many cases of what I now call ‘reactive defense,’ abusers weaponize these responses by turning the legal system against their victims. Paula’s ex-husband succeeded in getting her arrested and restricted to supervised visitation with her child. The officer investigating her case further compounded this injustice by presenting the manipulated video to the court without even viewing the raw footage. This highlights a broader issue within family courts: the lack of understanding regarding the dynamics of coercive control and reactive defense, which often results in unjust outcomes for victims.

Reframing Reactive Abuse in Family Courts

Paula’s case is a powerful reminder that the legal system must reconsider how it views physical and emotional reactions to prolonged abuse. The term ‘reactive abuse’ is misleading and harmful to victims, as it implies that their responses are inherently abusive, when in reality they are protective measures taken in response to provocation.

By reframing these situations as ‘reactive defense,’ we can better understand the power imbalances and psychological manipulation that fuel them. Courts need to be educated on the nuances of coercive control and gaslighting so that they can more accurately assess these cases and ensure victims are not punished for their reactions to abuse.

Going forward, I believe we should adopt the term ‘reactive defense’ to more accurately reflect the reality of these situations and protect victims from further harm.

Featured image: Reactive defense. Source: Viacheslav Yakobchuk / Adobe Stock.