We welcome this consultation, which sets out proposed changes to the law on financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, and for cohabitants on separation and intestacy. These proposals represent some of biggest reforms to family law in decades, which would introduce a statutory framework of rights and protections for eligible cohabitants at the point of separation and, notably, seeks to provide greater recognition of the impact domestic abuse, including economic abuse, can have in the family courts when a relationship ends.
At StepChange, we see how much economic abuse, including coerced debt1 has an impact on victim-survivors’ lives. Research we have conducted has demonstrated the extent and impact of economic abuse on victim-survivors, trapping them in dangerous situations and keeping them tethered to the abuser for years after the relationship has ended. In ‘Too close to home’, we estimated that coerced debt affects almost one in eight of our clients,2 and that 1.6 million UK adults (or 3% of the population) had experienced coerced debt, a form of economic abuse, in the year ending November 2024.3 Further research we conducted, ‘Filed away’, found that, among 569 victim-survivors we polled, the most common perpetrator types were current or former partner, with 46% of respondents citing an ex-partner.1
That is why we welcome the Government’s proposals to strengthen financial protections for cohabitants and reform financial remedy arrangements. Reforms must, however, recognise the prevalence and profound economic consequences of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, and ensure that victim-survivors and their children can achieve fair and sustainable outcomes.
Our key recommendations are:
- Domestic abuse, including economic abuse, should be a standalone factor that courts must consider in financial remedy and cohabitation proceedings. This should apply throughout the assessment of needs, sharing, compensation and conduct, not only in exceptional cases or where financial loss can be precisely quantified.
- The needs principle should be central, with priority given to housing, income and pension needs, and the needs of children. Needs should reflect the standard of living during the relationship, or what it might reasonably have been had the economic abuse not occurred, as well as survivors’ current and future financial security.
- Courts should have power to compensate for economic loss and disadvantage caused by domestic abuse. Victim-survivors should not have to prove every financial loss before abuse can be considered as a factor when determining compensation, and perpetrators should never be able to obtain a better financial outcome because of their abusive behaviour.
- Legal ownership and apparent financial position should not be treated as conclusive. Economic abuse can involve concealed assets, coerced debts, restricted employment, depleted pensions, financial exploitation and control of financial information. Courts must consider the wider context and the reality of each party’s financial circumstances.
- Misconduct during proceedings should have meaningful consequences. Misconduct includes non-disclosure, hiding or dissipating assets, deliberate delay, failure to comply with orders and using proceedings to intimidate or financially exhaust a survivor. Courts should be able to make costs orders, draw adverse inferences and adjust financial outcomes where appropriate.
- Evidence of domestic abuse should be considered flexibly. Survivors should not need a criminal conviction or a separate fact-finding hearing in every case. Courts should consider all available evidence and identify domestic abuse as early as possible, while allowing survivors to disclose abuse at any stage.
Cohabitants should have meaningful and flexible protections. Where domestic abuse has occurred, rights must not depend on arbitrary minimum ages or relationship durations, particularly where pregnancy or children are involved.
There should be safeguards around nuptial and opt-out agreements. Independent legal advice alone cannot overcome coercive and controlling behaviour. Courts should retain discretion to set aside agreements where domestic abuse has occurred or enforcement would produce an unfair outcome, including where abuse was not disclosed when the agreement was made.
Maintenance should remain available where necessary. A clean break should not be pursued at the expense of survivors’ or children’s financial security. Maintenance should not be restricted to exceptional circumstances or automatically time-limited where ongoing support is needed.
Pensions and retirement security must also be properly addressed. Courts should consider future income needs
regardless of whether those needs arise from pensions or other assets, recognising that domestic abuse can significantly reduce survivors’ pension wealth and earning capacity.
Moreover, joint mortgages and post-separation economic abuse require stronger protections. Courts should have effective powers to prevent perpetrators using ongoing financial ties, including mortgages, to maintain control or cause further financial harm during proceedings.
Implementation must be supported by specialist training, legal advice and public awareness. Clear guidance should dispel the “common law marriage” myth, explain new rights and exemptions, and be accessible through national campaigns, GOV.UK and trusted organisations. Victim-survivors must also have timely access to specialist legal advice and adequately funded legal aid.
Overall, the reforms should ensure that victim-survivors are not left paying the financial price for the abuser’s behaviour. A fair system would recognise the short-, medium- and long-term economic consequences of abuse, prevent perpetrators from profiting from their misconduct, and give courts sufficient discretion to achieve fair and equitable outcomes for victim-survivors and their children.
- Coerced debt describes the actions of perpetrator in the context of domestic abuse forcing a victim-survivor to make transactions that lead to debts, and the victim-survivor cannot say no for fear of the repercussions. The victim-survivor may not always know that the debts exist.
- StepChange Debt Charity (2025) Too close to home: StepChange debt advice clients’ experiences of coerced debt
- Ibid.
- StepChange Debt Charity (2026) Filed away: The experiences of victim-survivors with coerced debts during and after economic abuse