How stalkers weaponise the family courts

Dr Jess explains how ex-partners use the family courts to stalk and harass their victims for years on end, whilst pretending they care about their children

Mothers who are stalked by the father of their children constitute a particularly vulnerable group of stalking victims that require special consideration and comprehensive help.

Having children together opens up myriad possibilities for the stalker to stay in contact, harass, intrude, or even threaten the mother, either through social and legal authorities or through the children, in addition to stalking behaviours that directly target the woman personally. Legal battles about custody, visitations, and child support can go on for years and cause additional strain for both mother and children (Miller & Smolter, 2011; Mullen et al., 2009).

The mothers often feel they are misunderstood or presented as noncredible, as cases of abuse and stalking tend to be perceived as a matter of ‘reciprocal conflict’ between former intimate partners, who each tries to question the other’s credibility (Johansen et al., 2013). Moreover, the victims face the prospect of having to deal with these destructive issues for many years – sometimes decades, at least until all of their children turn eighteen.

Ultimately, the children risk, directly or indirectly, becoming secondary victims of stalking (Mullen et al., 2009).

When a victim of stalking shares children with their perpetrator, they face unique and prolonged risks that extend far beyond the end of the intimate relationship. Research indicates that the complexity and severity of stalking behaviours increase when the stalker and victim have children together (Johansen, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, & Helweg-Larsen, 2013; Logan, Cole, Shannon, & Walker, 2006).

Family courts, social services, and legal frameworks often fail to recognise these behaviours as stalking - instead treating them as legitimate parental disputes over child contact. As a result, perpetrators are frequently enabled by legal and social institutions, leaving victims trapped in a cycle of harassment, intimidation, and control.

In a study of 320 mothers who were stalked by the fathers of their children, researchers found that the children were also targeted by the stalking (Lokkegaard et al., 2019). Encounters with several agencies were common, but respondents were often not recognised as victims of stalking and demoralised by extensive child contact proceedings.

The victims are faced with a situation in which they are legally bound to stay in contact with their stalker due to their children, even though official recommendations state that stalking victims must avoid all contact with the stalker. This leaves victims and their children at high risk of being re-abused by the stalking parent (Baldry, 2002; Logan, Cole, et al., 2006; Nikupeteri & Laitinen, 2015; Walker, Logan, Jordan, & Campbell, 2004).

Additionally, the family court process contradicts the most basic safeguarding wisdom.

Mothers are expected to report stalking behaviour to the police in order to protect themselves and their children, but can in turn be accused of parental alienation, or of fabricating the stalking reports in order to disrupt child contact. When reports of stalking are made, they do not instantly pause or end child contact proceedings, so even if the Mother and children are being stalked, the family court process will continue.

If the stalker escalated to violence, and the Mother had not reported to the police, she could equally be criticised or punished for putting the children at risk – and so she is trapped in a system where she is always wrong, no matter what she does.

When the victim of stalking has children with the stalker, the opportunities for contact are higher, which may affect the intensity and variety of stalking tactics directed toward the victim. The children can be used as an additional tool of manipulation, as targets, or as allies in the stalking process. The children can be forced to gather information, ask questions, send locations, photos and videos, steal things, or may even be sent to the Mother’s address with GPS trackers in their bags or clothes (with or without their knowledge).

The stalker can send threats through the children, or threaten to harm or even kidnap them. Because of their children, the victims usually have more daily routines, making them easier to target and easier to monitor and predict (Brewster, 2003; Logan & Walker, 2009; Mullen et al., 2009).

The victim may seek help for coping with the stalking or to limit the stalker’s contact with the children due to risk or abuse. On the contrary, the stalking parent can use the authorities or private agencies as a tactic to further victimise, control and stalk the other parent (Cattaneo et al., 2011; Logan, Cole, et al., 2006; Miller & Smolter, 2011; Mullen et al., 2009).

Lokkegaard et al. (2019) report that making false reports of child abuse, filing frivolous or fabricated applications, complaints, breaches, or taking other legal actions as a means of forcing contact, and exerting power or otherwise burdening the ex-partner through social or legal authorities can be considered as ‘procedural stalking’ or ‘paper abuse’ (Miller & Smolter, 2011).

In Lokkegaard et al. (2019) a total of 68% of mothers reported their stalker to the police on average 4 times – and concerningly, for 23% of the women, the stalker reported them to the police on average 3 times – which deliberately muddies the waters.

Horrifyingly, more stalkers than victims had successfully sued the counterpart in court – again framing the victim as the problem and hiding the true nature of the stalking.

In addition, a higher portion of stalkers (79%) than victims had commenced a new child contact arrangement case or sought to make changes to existing case agreements of child custody/contact.

According to the respondents, the stalkers had done so significantly more often than the victims with an average number of 11 times compared with 4 times when the victim had done this.

This suggests that stalkers were deliberately using the family court process to initiate legal action against their victims, and in many cases, were successful in pursuing them.

The UK family court system operates on the principle that, barring exceptional circumstances, both parents should have access to their children. This well-intended framework is weaponised by stalkers, who manipulate legal proceedings and child contact arrangements to maintain access to their victim.

Blurred Boundaries: Stalking or Parental Rights?

A key issue in these cases is the difficulty in distinguishing between a parent exercising their legal rights and a stalker engaging in coercive and controlling behaviour. Courts often frame these disputes as custody battles between two high-conflict parents, rather than recognising the stalking for what it is. This failure is rooted in several systemic issues:

Procedural Stalking and Paper Abuse

Many perpetrators weaponise the legal system itself to exhaust and intimidate their victims (Miller & Smolter, 2011). This includes filing repeated and baseless applications for child contact modifications, forcing the victim to repeatedly attend court; making false allegations of parental alienation or abuse to discredit the victim; and using family courts as a tool for financial and emotional attrition, knowing the burden of legal fees and stress will wear the victim down.

Using Child Contact to Force Unwanted Contact

Many perpetrators use child contact handovers as an excuse to be physically near their victim. This may involve deliberately arriving early or late to create more opportunities for direct contact; demanding in-person handovers rather than using neutral third-party locations, exploiting any disagreement over logistics to escalate tension and harass the victim, and sending messages under the guise of discussing the children, but using them to intimidate or control the victim (Lokkegaard et al., 2019).

Threats and Manipulation of the Children

Stalkers often use children as tools of coercion by sending messages or threats to the victim through the children, interrogating the children for information about their mother, undermining the victim’s parenting to the children, making threats to kidnap or harm the children to exert control; subjecting the children to psychological manipulation and coercion; forcing the children to monitor the mother, convincing children to engage in the stalking of the mother, sending children with GPS trackers, or tracking their phones or wearables whilst with the mother.

Despite the clear intersection between intimate partner stalking and coercive control, family courts, social workers, and police officers often fail to recognise these behaviours as stalking. Several factors contribute to this failure.

Firstly, our systems are built on a ‘contact at all costs’ assumption. The presumption of parental involvement often overrides concerns about coercion and abuse. Victims are frequently told that they must facilitate contact for the sake of the children, even when there is clear evidence of harassment.

The family courts and many professionals within lack training in recognising stalking behaviours. When women report their ex-partner’s persistent legal harassment or misuse of child contact, they are often dismissed as being difficult or obstructive.

There is also the serious misuse of ‘Parental Alienation’ claims, which are currently the topic of much contentious debate. Perpetrators commonly claim that their ex-partner is engaging in parental alienation - deliberately turning the children against them. This is often a false narrative used to deflect attention away from their stalking behaviours. Courts often view these situations as reciprocal conflict, failing to recognise coercive control and stalking when it is occurring.

A fundamental shift is needed in how family courts handle cases where stalking and coercive control are present. One of the most critical changes is ensuring that courts can differentiate between legitimate child contact cases and those where contact is being weaponised as a form of post-separation abuse. Stalking should not be treated as a mere relationship dispute but as a significant child safeguarding issue, requiring appropriate interventions to protect both the victim and the child.

Risk assessments in family court cases also need substantial improvement. Judges, social workers, and legal professionals should undergo mandatory training to recognise post-separation coercive control and stalking behaviours. Furthermore, specialist stalking risk assessments should be introduced in cases where one parent alleges harassment or stalking behaviours, ensuring that the potential for harm is properly evaluated rather than overlooked in favour of parental rights.

Stronger legal protections must also be established for victims. Family court rulings should not have the power to override Stalking Protection Orders (SPOs), which are put in place to safeguard victims from further harm. Additionally, victims should have the right to request indirect contact arrangements, such as supervised visitation or third-party handovers, to minimise the risk of further coercion and intimidation.

Accountability for perpetrators who misuse the legal system to continue stalking their victims must also be reinforced. Family courts should impose sanctions on individuals who repeatedly file baseless applications as a means of harassment and stalking, especially where there is evidence of coercive control, harassment, stalking, protective orders or previous non-molestation orders. Moreover, clearer legal definitions of procedural stalking and paper abuse are needed to prevent perpetrators from exploiting family court processes to maintain control over their victims.

Stalking through family courts and child contact remains one of the least recognised yet most damaging forms of post-separation abuse.

Check out the list of stalking behaviours below, which I have created to help you to consider whether you are being stalked by your ex-partner.

Stalking encompasses a range of behaviours aimed at harassing, intimidating, or monitoring an individual, often causing significant distress and fear. These actions can occur in person or through digital means, commonly referred to as cyberstalking. Below are lists detailing common tactics and methods associated with both in-person stalking and cyberstalking.

In-Person Stalking Behaviours:

• Following: Persistently trailing the individual in various locations, such as their home, workplace, or public spaces

• Unwanted communication: Repeatedly contacting the victim through phone calls, letters, or messages despite clear indications to stop

• Surveillance: Monitoring the victim's activities by loitering near their residence, workplace, or frequented places

• Showing up: Appearing at the victim's home, workplace, or social events without invitation

• Sending gifts: Delivering unsolicited items, such as flowers, money, or presents, to the victim

• Property damage: Vandalising the victim's belongings, including their home, car, or personal possessions

• Threats of violence: Making verbal or written threats to harm or kill the victim or their loved ones

• Physical assault: Engaging in acts of physical aggression towards the victim

• Gathering personal information: Researching the victim's private details through public records, acquaintances, social media, employers, websites, or other means

• Using third parties: Employing friends, family, strangers, or private investigators to monitor or contact the victim

• Leaving disturbing items: Placing threatening or unsettling objects in locations where the victim will find them

• Trespassing/Breaking in: Illegally entering the victim's property without permission

• Following with vehicles: Following or tracking the victim's movements using a car or other transportation

• Interfering with mail: Tampering with or intercepting the victim's postal deliveries, parcels, and letters

• Harassing the victim's social circle: Contacting or intimidating the victim's friends, family, or colleagues

• Recording conversations: Secretly capturing audio or video of the victim without consent

• Manipulating shared custody: Using child contact arrangements or court proceedings to maintain unwanted contact

• Displaying or gathering weapons: Showing, collecting, gathering, buying firearms or other weapons to intimidate the victim

• Sabotaging personal property: Damaging the victim's belongings, such as vehicles or household items

• Using technology for tracking: Placing GPS devices on the victim's vehicle or personal items to monitor movements, manipulating apps or devices

Cyberstalking methods and tactics used by stalkers

• Unwanted emails or messages: Sending persistent, unsolicited communications via email, text, or messaging apps

• Social media harassment: Posting offensive or threatening comments on the victim's social media profiles

• Online impersonation: Creating fake profiles to pose as the victim or someone they know

• Hacking accounts: Gaining unauthorised access to the victim's online accounts, such as email or social media

• Doxxing: Publishing the victim's personal information, like home address or phone number, without consent – usually to cause stalking, harassment or malicious impact

• Monitoring online activity: Tracking the victim's internet usage, including websites visited and online interactions

• Sending malware: Distributing malicious software to compromise the victim's devices

• Using GPS tracking: Employing GPS technology to monitor the victim's physical location

• Catfishing: Assuming a false identity online to deceive and manipulate the victim, building fake relationships with them, befriending and grooming them using a fake identity

• Spamming: Flooding the victim's email or messaging accounts with excessive messages

• Online threats: Issuing threats of harm through digital platforms

• Posting inappropriate content: Sharing offensive or explicit material on the victim's online profile

• Using anonymity tools: Utilising technologies like Tor to conceal identity while harassing the victim

• Tracking via wearable devices: Exploiting vulnerabilities in smartwatches or fitness trackers to monitor the victim

• Interfering with online transactions: Disrupting the victim's online purchases or financial activities

• Manipulating digital photos: Altering images of the victim and distributing them online

• Engaging in online mobs: Coordinating groups of people, forums, organisations or strangers to collectively harass the victim on digital platforms

• Using AI chatbots for harassment: Employing artificial intelligence to impersonate the victim or lure others to engage with them under false pretences

• Exploiting internet devices: Accessing internet-connected devices in the victim's home to monitor or intimidate

• Phishing: Sending deceptive communications (usually by email or text message) to trick the victim into revealing personal information

Stalking (and cyberstalking) is often characterised by seemingly innocuous, isolated incidents that, when viewed individually, may not constitute a crime or appear deliberate. This can include behaviours such as sending unwanted messages, coincidentally appearing in the same places as the victim, or making persistent, non-threatening contact. While each of these actions in isolation may appear harmless or baseless to an observer, it is the pattern of repeated and unwanted behaviour that defines stalking.

Stalking by proxy

Stalking by proxy occurs when a stalker enlists third parties - knowingly or unknowingly - to harass, intimidate, or monitor their victim. This method extends the stalker’s reach, making it more difficult to detect and disrupt their behaviour, as much of the harassment appears to originate from other sources, or appears to be legitimate.

Third parties involved in stalking by proxy may include:

• Unwitting participants, such as delivery drivers, companies, banks, legal professionals, organisations, social care, solicitors, family courts, doctors and medical professionals, police, schools, universities, employers, government agencies, therapists, and people who are manipulated into engaging with the victim on the stalker’s behalf

• Deliberate collaborators, such as friends, family members, or online groups, who actively participate in harassing or intimidating the victim

Stalkers exploit weaknesses in systems and institutions to continue their abuse. The legal system is particularly vulnerable to misuse, allowing stalkers to initiate false claims, file malicious complaints, or engage in vexatious litigation. This entraps victims in bureaucratic and legal battles, causing them distress, financial strain, and reputational damage.

How Stalking by Proxy Occurs

Some of the most common ways stalkers use third parties to continue harassment include:

• Misusing the legal system: Filing false police reports, initiating baseless legal claims, or exploiting court procedures to maintain contact with the victim

• Manipulating service providers: Using organisations, institutions, or professionals (such as social workers, medical staff, or employers) to access information about the victim, or to make decisions about the victim

• Inciting others online: Encouraging strangers or groups to harass the victim via social media, false accusations, or digital smear campaigns

• Using official channels to discredit the victim: Making fraudulent complaints to professional bodies, government, regulators, or employers to harm the victim’s career, finances, or credibility

Examples of Stalking by Proxy Tactics

• Arranging deliveries to the victim’s address, such as taxis, takeaways, or unwanted parcels

• Encouraging online harassment, such as posting defamatory content or false allegations to incite strangers to contact or threaten the victim

• Using police or court systems to access the victim’s address, legal records, or personal data

• Initiating court proceedings relating to children, divorce, property or finances as a way to legitimately harass and stalk the victim

• Falsely reporting the victim for benefit fraud, financial fraud, tax evasion or other financial crimes to cause investigations

• Falsely reporting the victim for child abuse, child neglect or concerns about their children, in order to commence investigations by social care services into the safety of their children

• Manipulating professionals into disclosing information (e.g., medical staff, social workers, or law enforcement)

• Falsely claiming to have been in a road traffic accident with the victim to initiate legal or insurance claims

• Accusing the victim of stalking them, attempting to reverse the victim-offender dynamic

• Submitting false complaints to workplaces or universities, alleging misconduct, unprofessional behaviour, or criminal activity to damage the victim’s reputation

• Filing false police reports, falsely accusing the victim of serious offences such as assault, sexual violence, fraud, or child abuse

• Submitting malicious complaints to regulatory bodies, alleging professional misconduct, abuse, or malpractice to create investigations into the victim

• Using legal complaints to maintain contact, such as enforcing mediation, child contact proceedings, or other civil actions

• Using patients’ or clients’ status to make false allegations, such as stalkers falsely reporting professionals for misconduct, malpractice, or abuse

• Forcing unwanted interactions through court-ordered processes, including restorative justice, mediation, or legal negotiations

• Raising concerns about the mental health of the victim to police, medical professionals and social care services to frame the victim as unstable or mentally ill

Stalking by proxy can cause significant harm, as victims may struggle to prove that they are being targeted - particularly when harassment comes from multiple sources. Police, legal professionals, medical and social care staff must be aware of how these tactics are used and take patterns of behaviour into account, rather than assessing each incident in isolation.