Dear Judge: 'High Conflict' and 'Coercive Control' Are Not Synonyms

Judicial Accountability · By Gale McArthur · 2026-04-02 · 9 min read

A judge's guide to distinguishing systemic abuse from mutual disagreement — because flattening these concepts costs children their safety.

If you're a judge in Washington State and you've ever written "both parents contribute to the conflict" in a case involving documented coercive control, this article is for you. Grab a coffee. ☕ This might sting.

One is a disagreement. The other is abuse. Knowing the difference is literally your job.

🎯 The Diagnostic Chart You Didn't Know You Needed

| Feature | High Conflict | Coercive Control | |---|---|---| | Power dynamic | Roughly equal | One-sided domination | | Communication | Both escalate | One controls, one reacts | | Post-separation | Conflict reduces over time | Control tactics intensify | | Children | Caught in the middle | Used as instruments of control | | Legal system use | Both file motions | One weaponizes the process | | Response to boundaries | Grudging acceptance | Escalation and retaliation |

Pro tip: If one parent files 14 motions in 12 months and the other is just trying to survive — that's not "high conflict." That's litigation abuse. 📑

📜 What Washington Law Actually Says

Since HB 1620 and updates to RCW 26.09.191:

  • Coercive control IS domestic violence — no bruises required
  • Courts must evaluate patterns of behavior, not isolated incidents
  • The "high conflict" label cannot be used to neutralize documented abuse

This isn't new law. It's existing law that's being ignored.

🧪 The Litmus Test for Your Next Ruling

Before you label a case "high conflict," run through this checklist:

### Is One Parent: - [ ] Controlling finances post-separation? - [ ] Filing serial motions to exhaust the other's resources? - [ ] Using the children as messengers or leverage? - [ ] Monitoring the other parent's movements or communications? - [ ] Making false allegations to gain tactical advantage?

If you checked any of these boxes, you're not looking at high conflict. You're looking at coercive control — and Washington law requires you to treat it as domestic violence.

🎪 The "Both Parents Are the Problem" Circus

Here's what happens when judges flatten coercive control into "high conflict":

1. The abuser gets validated ("See? We're BOTH the problem!") 2. The victim gets penalized for reacting to abuse 3. The children lose their safe parent 4. The GAL gets to bill for another 6 months of "monitoring" 5. Everyone profits except the family

It's not a justice system at that point. It's a revenue model with a gavel. 🔨💰

🧠 The Neuroscience You're Missing

When a judge misidentifies coercive control as "mutual conflict":

  • Children in these homes show cortisol levels comparable to combat veterans
  • Protective parents develop complex PTSD from both the abuse AND the court's failure to recognize it
  • Abusers learn that the court is another tool of control

Research from the National Institute of Justice shows that children exposed to coercive control have worse outcomes than those exposed to physical violence alone.

Let that sink in. Then ask yourself if "both parents contribute" is really your best analysis.

✅ The Standard We're Asking For

1. Name it correctly — If it's coercive control, say so in your findings 2. Apply the statute — RCW 26.09.191 exists for a reason 3. Don't outsource the analysis — A GAL calling it "high conflict" doesn't make it so 4. Track your patterns — Are you consistently flattening abuse cases?

Verify GAL qualifications and county transparency data at www.galeregistry.com.