The Institutional Enabling of Coercive Control: A Systemic Failure

By Walthari Nikolaj

Introduction

Coercive control is often framed as an issue confined to private relationships—something that happens behind closed doors. However, what is rarely acknowledged is the way institutions themselves become tools of coercion, reinforcing control through misuse of authority, false reporting, and bureaucratic indifference.

This is not just about one person exerting power over another; it is about how systems can be manipulated to strip an individual of their autonomy. The police, healthcare providers, and the courts all have a duty to act impartially and in accordance with evidence, yet when they fail to scrutinise who is influencing their decisions, they risk legitimising coercive tactics rather than preventing them.

This article examines how false reports, medical misrepresentation, and the legal system’s reliance on flawed evidence contribute to the long-term victimisation of individuals through institutional means.

1. False Reports and Institutional Credibility

When institutions operate under the assumption that every report made to them is in good faith, they open the door to abuse. False accusations, particularly those relating to mental health, can have long-lasting consequences, creating an official record that is then relied upon in later decision-making.

A. Police and Mental Health Allegations

One of the most effective ways to exert control over someone is to create a paper trail of doubt about their credibility. This is often achieved through:

• False welfare concerns reported to police—leading to unnecessary interventions that are later treated as objective evidence of instability.
• Fabricated claims of erratic or threatening behaviour—which can escalate into restraining orders or other legal restrictions.
• Misuse of mental health crisis teams—where reports are made not out of genuine concern, but to remove an individual’s autonomy and credibility.

Once these reports are logged, they are rarely questioned. Instead, they become self-perpetuating—each new incident is viewed in the context of previous (often false) claims, making it harder for the accused to disprove the allegations.

B. The Role of Healthcare Institutions

Medical professionals are trained to assess symptoms, not always circumstances. This makes them particularly vulnerable to being fed misleading information by those with an agenda. When false claims about someone’s mental health are presented as fact, the following often occurs:

• Unnecessary psychiatric assessments, which then justify further restrictions on the individual’s rights.
• Decisions made based on third-party claims, rather than the patient’s own account of their health.
• Involuntary involvement of individuals who do not have legal authority, reinforcing control over the victim’s medical decisions.

Medical records can then be used against the individual in legal proceedings, even when they were based on manipulated or incomplete information.

2. Misrepresentation and the Removal of Autonomy

One of the most disturbing aspects of institutional coercive control is the ease with which someone can be misrepresented by others. This is particularly true when a third party claims to act on behalf of a vulnerable person without their consent.

A. Assumed Authority and False Representation

When institutions fail to verify who has the right to act on an individual’s behalf, it enables:

• False claims of being a legal guardian, next of kin, or family representative, allowing a third party to influence decisions.
• The restriction of communication—where individuals are cut off from professionals who might recognise the coercion.
• Manipulation of records—where a victim’s objections are dismissed in favour of a controlling narrative.

Once an institution has accepted a false authority, it is incredibly difficult for the victim to challenge it. Decisions are made about them, not with them.

B. Long-Term Consequences

Being misrepresented in official records can have far-reaching consequences, including:

• Restrictions on personal freedom—such as unnecessary hospital admissions, care orders, or restraining orders based on misleading claims.
• Criminal implications—where false accusations result in arrests, charges, or wrongful convictions.
• Loss of credibility—as once an individual has been labelled as “unstable” or “unreliable,” every attempt to correct the record is viewed as further evidence of instability.

This erasure of autonomy is not accidental—it is a deliberate strategy used in coercive control to deny the victim a voice.

3. The Legal System’s Reliance on Flawed Evidence

Legal proceedings are supposed to rely on facts, not assumptions. However, when institutions have already built a false narrative, the legal system often follows suit.

A. The Consequences of Unquestioned Evidence

The legal system depends on evidence presented to it—but what happens when that evidence is:

• Based on false reports that were never verified?
• Influenced by witnesses with personal agendas?
• Contradicted by later disclosures, yet still relied upon in court?

In many cases, once a person has been accused, the burden is placed on them to disprove it—even when the accusations were based on falsehoods. This reversal of justice shifts responsibility from the accuser to the accused, forcing them to navigate a legal system that already assumes their guilt.

B. The Disproportionate Use of Legal Restrictions

Restraining orders, mental health orders, and other legal restrictions should be proportionate, necessary, and based on fact. However, when the process is influenced by misleading narratives, these measures become:

• A weapon of control, rather than a protective mechanism.
• A means to silence, rather than to safeguard.
• A permanent label, even after the truth comes to light.

The law is meant to protect victims of coercion and false accusations, yet too often it is used to perpetuate the very abuses it was designed to prevent.

4. The Urgent Need for Institutional Accountability

The problem is not just that coercive control happens. The problem is that institutions enable it through:

?? Failure to verify claims before acting on them.

?? Blind acceptance of third-party reports without scrutiny.

?? Legal reliance on flawed or manipulated evidence.

These failures allow state systems to become complicit in coercion, with devastating consequences for those caught in their grip.

What Needs to Change?

1. Stronger verification processes for police, healthcare, and legal institutions to prevent false reporting from becoming accepted fact.
2. Clearer mechanisms for challenging false information, including independent review processes for legal and medical decisions.
3. Greater accountability for those who knowingly provide misleading statements, ensuring that coercion through institutional misuse is recognised as abuse.

Conclusion

Coercive control is not just about individuals manipulating each other—it is about how institutions become enablers when they fail to question the narratives presented to them.

The police, the NHS, and the legal system must do more than just process reports and issue restrictions—they must scrutinise who is making the claims, why they are being made, and whether they are supported by objective evidence.

If institutions continue to rubber-stamp control and call it justice, then they are not simply failing victims—they are creating them.