From Coercive Control to Lethal Violence: The Behavioral Commonalities Between Relationship Abusers and Homicidal Offenders

A Clinical–Forensic Psychology and California Family Law Perspective

Prepared for clinical, forensic, family-court, judicial, advocacy, and professional education

Abstract

Intimate-partner violence exists on a behavioral continuum ranging from coercive and controlling conduct to physical violence, stalking, strangulation, threats, weapon use, severe assault, and, in a subset of cases, lethal violence. This continuum does not mean that every relationship abuser will become homicidal. Rather, contemporary violence-risk research demonstrates that certain behavioral patterns associated with coercive control are also prominent risk markers in intimate-partner homicide.

A meta-analysis of 17 studies examining 148 effect sizes identified several of the strongest risk factors for intimate-partner homicide: direct access to a firearm, previous nonfatal strangulation, previous rape, previous threats with a weapon, controlling behaviors, and previous threats to harm the victim.

This paper examines the behavioral commonalities between relationship abusers and homicidal offenders through the lenses of coercive control, intimate terrorism, behavioral escalation, instrumental violence, separation-related violence, stalking, threat credibility, victim autonomy, perpetrator entitlement, and forensic risk assessment. It further examines how these principles intersect with California Family Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040, 3044, 3064, 3100, 6203, and 6211.

The central forensic proposition is that lethality should not be evaluated solely by examining the most recent violent incident. It should be evaluated by examining the perpetrator’s behavioral pattern, trajectory, escalation, access to means, response to loss of control, and demonstrated capacity to disregard the victim’s autonomy and safety.

I. Introduction

Domestic violence is frequently conceptualized too narrowly.

A physical assault produces visible evidence. A broken bone, bruise, police report, photograph, arrest, or criminal conviction is comparatively easy to identify.

Coercive control is different.

It may consist of surveillance, intimidation, isolation, financial control, threats, stalking, manipulation of children, destruction of property, sexual coercion, harassment, technological monitoring, and repeated efforts to restrict another person’s autonomy.

The absence of a visible injury does not necessarily mean the absence of serious danger.

California law itself recognizes that abuse is broader than physical injury. Family Code § 6203 defines abuse to include intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, sexual assault, placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury, and behavior that could be enjoined under § 6320; importantly, the statute expressly states that abuse is not limited to actual physical injury or assault.

This legal framework is highly compatible with a behavioral understanding of domestic violence.

The relevant question therefore becomes:

What behavioral pattern is occurring, and what does that pattern tell us about future risk?

II. A Necessary Forensic Disclaimer: Abuse Does Not Equal Homicide

It is scientifically inaccurate to conclude that a person who commits relationship abuse will necessarily commit homicide.

Domestic-violence perpetrators are heterogeneous. Research distinguishes different patterns of intimate-partner violence rather than treating all IPV perpetrators as psychologically identical.

Johnson’s typological work, for example, distinguishes coercive controlling violence, situational couple violence, violent resistance, and separation-instigated violence. Kelly and Johnson emphasized that intimate-partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon and should be differentiated according to relationship dynamics, context, control, and consequences.

Therefore:

Abuse is not synonymous with homicide.

However:

A history of coercive control and violence can become substantially more concerning when combined with known lethality indicators.

The forensic objective is not to predict with certainty that someone will kill.

The objective is to identify whether the available evidence demonstrates elevated risk and a behavioral trajectory toward increasingly serious harm.

III. Coercive Control as a Behavioral Framework

Coercive control is best understood as a pattern rather than a single act.

The perpetrator progressively restricts the victim’s:

• autonomy;
• freedom of movement;
• social relationships;
• financial independence;
• privacy;
• communication;
• sexuality;
• parenting;
• employment;
• access to resources;
• ability to leave; and
• ability to make independent decisions.

This pattern is particularly relevant to forensic psychology because it shifts the analysis away from isolated incidents and toward behavioral function.

The question becomes:

What is the perpetrator attempting to accomplish through the behavior?

If the answer repeatedly involves domination, punishment, intimidation, surveillance, compliance, or preventing separation, the behavior has a fundamentally different meaning than an isolated argument between two people.

Research examining intimate-partner violence has similarly emphasized that different forms of violence must be understood in their control context.

IV. The Perpetrator Behavior Continuum

A clinically useful model is to conceptualize perpetrator behavior as a continuum.

Stage 1 — Entitlement and Boundary Testing

The perpetrator begins establishing whether the partner will submit to unreasonable demands.

Examples may include:

• demanding passwords;
• questioning ordinary activities;
• excessive jealousy;
• monitoring communications;
• criticizing friends;
• demanding immediate responses;
• establishing rules for the relationship.

The central psychological theme is:

“My needs should govern your behavior.”

Stage 2 — Psychological Control

The behavior becomes more systematic.

Examples include:

• humiliation;
• intimidation;
• isolation;
• financial restriction;
• threats of abandonment;
• emotional punishment;
• manipulation;
• monitoring;
• gaslighting;
• repeated accusations of infidelity;
• controlling access to transportation or employment.

The victim’s behavioral freedom begins narrowing.

The perpetrator’s psychological objective increasingly becomes:

compliance.

Stage 3 — Coercive Control

The relationship develops into a system of domination.

The perpetrator may determine:

• where the victim can go;
• whom the victim can see;
• what the victim can wear;
• whom the victim can communicate with;
• how money is spent;
• how children are raised;
• whether the victim can leave;
• what information may be disclosed to others.

At this stage, individual incidents should not be interpreted in isolation.

The pattern itself becomes clinically meaningful.

Stage 4 — Threats and Intimidation

Threats may become explicit:

• “I’ll hurt you.”
• “I’ll kill you.”
• “You’ll never get away from me.”
• “If I can’t have you, nobody will.”
• threats against children;
• threats against family members;
• threats of suicide or homicide;
• threats involving weapons.

Threats become especially significant when accompanied by behavioral evidence demonstrating the perpetrator’s capacity and willingness to act.

Stage 5 — Physical Violence

The perpetrator crosses from psychological domination into physical assault.

Examples include:

• pushing;
• grabbing;
• punching;
• kicking;
• throwing objects;
• restraining;
• choking/strangulation;
• assault with objects;
• sexual violence.

The forensic question is no longer merely whether violence occurred.

It is:

Is the violence increasing in frequency, severity, lethality, or intentionality?

Stage 6 — Strangulation and Lethality-Associated Violence

Nonfatal strangulation deserves particular attention.

Research characterizes nonfatal strangulation as an extreme controlling form of violence and identifies it as a risk factor for intimate-partner homicide. A large study of IPV perpetrators found an association between prior death threats and subsequent nonfatal strangulation, consistent with the concept that strangulation can increase the credibility of lethal threats.

A separate meta-analysis also identified nonfatal strangulation among important factors associated with intimate-partner homicide risk.

From a forensic perspective, strangulation should therefore never be dismissed as merely “another assault.”

Stage 7 — Stalking and Post-Separation Pursuit

Separation may alter rather than end the abusive relationship.

The perpetrator may:

• repeatedly contact the victim;
• follow the victim;
• monitor social media;
• appear at work or home;
• contact relatives;
• use children to maintain access;
• file repeated legal actions as a mechanism of continued contact;
• violate protective orders;
• monitor technology;
• threaten new partners.

Research has specifically connected coercive control, stalking, and potential lethal intimate-partner violence.

This is why post-separation behavior can be highly relevant to forensic risk assessment.

Stage 8 — Weaponization

The introduction or escalation of weapons substantially changes the risk profile.

The meta-analysis by Spencer and Stith identified firearm access and previous weapon threats among the strongest risk factors examined for intimate-partner homicide.

The presence of a weapon is therefore not simply another fact in the case.

It can change the potential lethality of an already-established pattern of coercive control.

Stage 9 — Severe or Potentially Lethal Violence

The perpetrator may engage in:

• repeated strangulation;
• severe beating;
• assault with weapons;
• attempted homicide;
• forced confinement;
• threats accompanied by means and opportunity;
• sexual violence combined with other violence;
• attacks during separation;
• escalating stalking combined with threats.

At this point, the forensic formulation should focus on lethality, capability, intent, opportunity, access to means, escalation, and protective factors.

Stage 10 — Lethal Violence

In a subset of cases, the trajectory culminates in homicide.

The homicide should not necessarily be viewed as a completely independent event.

In many cases, the behavioral history provides important information about how the perpetrator responded to:

• rejection;
• separation;
• loss of control;
• humiliation;
• perceived betrayal;
• legal intervention;
• protective orders;
• loss of access to the victim;
• threats to status or identity.

This is where the distinction between ordinary relationship conflict and coercive domination becomes particularly important.

V. Behavioral Commonalities Between Relationship Abusers and Homicidal Offenders

1. Control

The strongest commonality is often the attempt to control another person.

In relationship abuse, control may be exercised through intimidation, isolation, threats, financial restriction, surveillance, or violence.

In lethal violence, control may ultimately become absolute.

The victim is no longer merely being coerced to comply.

The perpetrator attempts to determine whether the victim will live.

2. Entitlement

The perpetrator may experience the partner’s autonomy as illegitimate.

The psychological narrative becomes:

“You do not have the right to make this decision without me.”

This can become particularly dangerous when the victim exercises the right to leave.

3. Externalization of Responsibility

The perpetrator may attribute responsibility for violence to the victim:

• “She provoked me.”
• “He wouldn’t listen.”
• “She made me jealous.”
• “I lost control because of what she did.”

Forensic assessment must distinguish precipitating events from causal responsibility.

A victim’s behavior may precipitate an emotional reaction.

It does not cause another person to choose violence.

4. Minimization

Perpetrators may characterize serious behavior as:

• an argument;
• mutual conflict;
• a misunderstanding;
• “just yelling”;
• “just jealousy”;
• “one mistake”;
• “discipline”;
• “anger.”

A forensic evaluator should compare the person’s narrative with objective behavioral evidence.

5. Boundary Violation

Repeated boundary violations are clinically meaningful.

Examples include:

• continuing contact after being told to stop;
• violating protective orders;
• entering prohibited locations;
• monitoring communications;
• refusing separation;
• using third parties to obtain information.

The issue is not merely whether the person is angry.

It is whether the person recognizes the victim’s autonomy as legitimate.

6. Escalation

Escalation is one of the most important longitudinal variables.

The relevant trajectory may involve:

verbal aggression → intimidation → threats → stalking → physical violence → strangulation → weapons → severe assault → attempted or completed homicide.

Not every case follows this sequence.

But increasing severity, frequency, specificity, or lethality should be treated as a meaningful change in risk.

VI. The Significance of Strangulation

Among all forms of IPV, strangulation warrants particular forensic attention.

The act combines:

physical violence + control + vulnerability + potential lethality.

Research specifically identifies nonfatal strangulation as a risk factor for intimate-partner homicide.

Stansfield and Williams’ research is particularly relevant because it examined strangulation through a coercive-control framework and found an association between prior death threats and subsequent strangulation among a large sample of IPV perpetrators.

Accordingly, a forensic assessment should document:

• number of strangulation incidents;
• mechanism;
• duration;
• loss of consciousness;
• breathing difficulty;
• threats made during the event;
• injuries;
• weapons present;
• whether children were present;
• subsequent stalking;
• subsequent threats;
• violations of protective orders.

VII. Separation as a Potential Risk Transition

The end of a relationship can challenge the perpetrator’s control structure.

A person who previously controlled the victim’s daily environment may suddenly lose:

• physical access;
• information;
• authority;
• financial control;
• sexual access;
• social access;
• parental access;
• the ability to monitor the victim.

This may produce a transition from relationship-based coercive control to post-separation control tactics.

The forensic question becomes:

How does this individual respond when control is removed?

That question can be more informative than simply asking whether the person is angry.

VIII. California Family Code Integration

California law provides an important legal framework for translating behavioral evidence into custody analysis.

Family Code § 3020

California declares that the health, safety, and welfare of children are the court’s primary concern in determining their best interests. The statute further recognizes that children have a right to be safe from abuse and that domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the child’s health, safety, and welfare.

The statute also provides that when the policy favoring frequent and continuing contact conflicts with safety, custody orders must prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the child and the safety of family members.

This is highly relevant to coercive-control cases.

Family Code § 3011

Section 3011 directs the court to consider the child’s health, safety, and welfare and a history of abuse by a parent or other person seeking custody.

Thus, a forensic evaluation should not necessarily reduce a case to:

“Was there one physical assault?”

Instead, the evaluator may appropriately examine the history, pattern, severity, context, and consequences of abusive behavior, consistent with the statutory framework and applicable evidentiary standards.

IX. California Family Code § 3044

Section 3044 is particularly important.

When a court finds that a party seeking custody has perpetrated domestic violence within the preceding five years against the other party, the child, siblings, or certain qualifying persons, the statute establishes a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint physical or legal custody to the perpetrator is detrimental to the child’s best interest.

The statute identifies factors relevant to rebutting that presumption, including:

• successful completion of a batterer’s treatment program;
• appropriate substance-abuse counseling;
• parenting education;
• probation/parole compliance;
• compliance with protective or restraining orders;
• whether further domestic violence has occurred; and
• firearm or ammunition violations.

Importantly, the statute does not permit the court simply to rely on a custody evaluator’s conclusion. When the § 3044 presumption applies, the statute requires consideration of relevant admissible evidence, and if the presumption is overcome, the court must make specific findings and state its reasons in writing or on the record.

This creates an important bridge between forensic behavioral science and family-law decision-making.

X. California Family Code § 6203 and the Meaning of Abuse

California Family Code § 6203 expressly states that abuse is not limited to actual physical injury or assault. It encompasses specified forms of conduct that include causing or attempting bodily injury, sexual assault, creating reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury, and conduct that can be enjoined under § 6320.

Therefore, a behavioral assessment should avoid an overly narrow injury-based model.

The absence of a broken bone does not establish the absence of dangerous behavior.

Likewise, the absence of a criminal conviction does not necessarily establish the absence of a coercive or dangerous behavioral pattern.

XI. California Family Code § 6211

Section 6211 defines the relationships covered by California’s domestic-violence framework, including spouses and former spouses, cohabitants and former cohabitants, dating or engagement relationships, persons who share a child, and certain relatives.

This is important because intimate-partner violence frequently continues after the intimate relationship itself has ended.

The end of the romantic relationship does not necessarily end the behavioral system.

XII. California Family Code § 3064 and Immediate Risk

California Family Code § 3064 provides that an ex parte custody order requires a showing of immediate harm or immediate risk of removal from California. The statute specifically includes recent domestic violence or a demonstrated and continuing pattern of domestic violence within the concept of immediate harm and directs consideration of illegal access to firearms and ammunition.

This statutory language has significant forensic implications.

A pattern can matter.

The evaluator should therefore consider:

recency + repetition + escalation + severity + means + access + threats + protective-order compliance + response to separation.

XIII. Family Court and the Problem of “High Conflict” Misclassification

One of the most significant forensic concerns is misclassifying coercive control as ordinary mutual conflict.

A high-conflict relationship may involve two people who both contribute to escalating arguments.

Coercive control is different.

The critical question is whether there is a persistent asymmetry in:

• power;
• fear;
• control;
• surveillance;
• consequences for resistance;
• freedom of movement;
• financial independence;
• decision-making;
• ability to safely disengage.

A victim who protests, defends herself, documents abuse, seeks legal protection, or refuses compliance should not automatically be classified as equally abusive merely because she responds emotionally or verbally.

This is why the context of behavior is indispensable.

XIV. Forensic Assessment: What Should Be Examined?

A comprehensive forensic assessment should consider multiple domains.

A. Behavioral History

• prior violence;
• threats;
• stalking;
• strangulation;
• sexual violence;
• property destruction;
• intimidation;
• coercive control;
• protective-order violations.

B. Escalation

• increasing frequency;
• increasing severity;
• increasing specificity of threats;
• increasing surveillance;
• increasing weapon involvement.

C. Separation

• behavior before separation;
• behavior immediately after separation;
• stalking;
• harassment;
• litigation-related contact;
• child-related contact;
• threats regarding custody;
• threats involving new partners.

D. Means and Opportunity

• firearm access;
• weapon access;
• physical access to victim;
• knowledge of victim’s routines;
• access through children;
• technological surveillance.

E. Psychological Function

Ask:

What purpose does the behavior serve?

Possible functions include:

• control;
• intimidation;
• punishment;
• retaliation;
• humiliation;
• surveillance;
• compliance;
• preventing abandonment;
• maintaining access.

F. Accountability

Assess whether the perpetrator:

• accepts responsibility;
• minimizes;
• blames the victim;
• rationalizes;
• demonstrates empathy;
• acknowledges consequences;
• complies with court orders;
• completes intervention;
• demonstrates sustained behavioral change.

XV. Treatment Completion Is Not the Same as Risk Elimination

A particularly important forensic distinction is:

program completion ≠ behavioral transformation.

Completion of a batterer intervention program may be relevant under California law, including § 3044, but completion itself does not establish that the underlying risk has disappeared.

The more meaningful question is:

Has there been demonstrable behavioral change across time and circumstances?

Evidence of meaningful change may include:

• sustained nonviolence;
• accountability;
• compliance with orders;
• cessation of stalking;
• respect for boundaries;
• absence of retaliatory behavior;
• improved emotional regulation;
• demonstrated acceptance of the victim’s autonomy;
• appropriate parenting behavior;
• no weapon violations;
• no new abusive conduct.

XVI. A Forensic Behavioral Continuum

The continuum can therefore be summarized as:

Entitlement

↓

Boundary Testing

↓

Psychological Manipulation

↓

Isolation / Surveillance

↓

Coercive Control

↓

Threats / Intimidation

↓

Physical or Sexual Violence

↓

Strangulation / High-Lethality Assault

↓

Stalking / Post-Separation Escalation

↓

Weapon Involvement

↓

Severe or Potentially Lethal Violence

↓

Attempted Homicide

↓

Homicide

This is not a deterministic progression.

It is a forensic conceptual model for examining behavioral escalation and combinations of risk factors.

XVII. The Most Important Clinical–Forensic Principle

The greatest error in assessing relationship violence may be focusing exclusively on what happened during the most recent incident.

A forensic assessment should also ask:

What happened before it?

What has happened repeatedly?

What happens when the victim says no?

What happens when the victim attempts to leave?

What happens when the perpetrator loses control?

Has the violence escalated?

Has stalking emerged?

Has strangulation occurred?

Have threats become more specific?

Is there access to weapons?

Has the perpetrator violated court orders?

Has the perpetrator demonstrated genuine accountability?

These questions transform the assessment from an incident-based analysis into a behavioral trajectory analysis.

XVIII. Conclusion

The research does not support the proposition that relationship abusers are simply “murderers in waiting.”

That would be scientifically unsound.

What the evidence does support is more precise and more clinically useful:

Certain behaviors found in coercively abusive relationships overlap substantially with behaviors associated with intimate-partner homicide risk.

Among the most important are:

controlling behavior, threats to harm, threats with weapons, firearm access, nonfatal strangulation, rape or sexual violence, stalking, escalation, and separation-related risk.

The significance of coercive control is therefore not merely that it causes emotional distress.

It can represent a behavioral architecture of domination in which the perpetrator increasingly restricts the victim’s autonomy and responds to resistance with escalating forms of control.

The critical forensic question is not simply:

“Is this person angry?”

Nor is it:

“Was there a single violent incident?”

The more clinically meaningful question is:

“What does this person’s behavioral history demonstrate about their capacity to respect autonomy, tolerate separation, comply with boundaries, accept accountability, and refrain from escalating when control is threatened?”

That question is particularly relevant in family court because California law expressly places children’s health, safety, and welfare at the center of custody determinations, recognizes histories of abuse as relevant, and—when the statutory requirements are met—creates a rebuttable presumption against custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence under Family Code § 3044.

Ultimately, lethality is not best understood as an isolated event. It is often better understood through the behavioral trajectory that precedes it.

Recognizing that trajectory does not require predicting that every abuser will become a murderer.

It requires professionals to recognize when a pattern has moved beyond ordinary relationship conflict and into coercive domination, escalating violence, and potentially lethal risk.

Selected Peer-Reviewed and Legal References

1. Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527–540.
2. Stansfield, R., & Williams, K. R. Coercive Control Between Intimate Partners: An Application to Nonfatal Strangulation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. The study examined 6,488 IPV perpetrators and the relationship between death threats and subsequent nonfatal strangulation.
3. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476–499.
4. Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Northeastern University Press.
5. California Family Code § 6203 — statutory definition of abuse.
6. California Family Code § 6211 — statutory definition of domestic violence relationships.
7. California Family Code § 3011 — best-interest factors and history of abuse.
8. California Family Code § 3020 — health, safety, and welfare of children and family members.
9. California Family Code § 3044 — domestic-violence custody presumption and rebuttal factors.
10. California Family Code § 3064 — immediate harm and continuing patterns of domestic violence.

Important forensic qualification

This paper is an educational clinical-forensic framework, not a substitute for an individualized violence-risk assessment. Risk factors are probabilistic, not deterministic. Their meaning depends upon the quality of the evidence, the temporal pattern, context, perpetrator characteristics, protective factors, and the interaction among multiple variables.