When a relationship begins to unravel under the weight of control and emotional harm, couples therapy can appear to be the obvious next step. After all, therapy is meant to heal, to help both partners communicate better and find mutual understanding. But in the context of abuse, this well-intentioned approach can backfire disastrously.

In relationships marked by coercion or control, couples therapy is rarely effective and often unsafe. At best, it produces no meaningful change. At worst, it strengthens the abuser’s power, further silences the victim, and even escalates the risk of harm. The very structure of couples therapy, built on the idea of shared responsibility and mutual respect, collapses when one person holds power over the other.

Coercive Control Is Not a Relationship Problem

Coercive control is a slow and insidious form of abuse that entraps a partner through manipulation, fear, and the steady erosion of autonomy. It relies on psychological tactics such as isolation, surveillance, humiliation, and intimidation. Its markers are not always visible, yet its impact is devastating.

Victims often come to believe that they are the problem. By the time they reach therapy, many have been conditioned to take blame for the relationship’s distress. This self-blame can lead both partners, and sometimes the therapist, to misinterpret the abuse as “communication issues” or “personality clashes.”

In her book Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives, Dr Emma Katz explains that conflict in coercive relationships is not ordinary disagreement. It arises from domination, not difference. And domination cannot be negotiated through dialogue or empathy-building exercises.

“The highly unequal power dynamic generated by the coercive control perpetrator over their target precludes the possibility of mutuality between them” (Katz, 2022, p. 37).

Why Couples Therapy Fails in Abusive Relationships

Couples therapy assumes both partners have equal capacity and motivation to engage in change. In coercive or abusive relationships, that assumption is false. The abuser’s goal is to maintain control, not repair harm. As a result, therapy sessions often become another arena in which control plays out.

Dominance and Manipulation in Sessions

Abusers are often persuasive and charismatic in public settings. In therapy, they may dominate the conversation, charm the therapist, and frame themselves as the reasonable one. They might use therapeutic language to twist reality, accusing their partner of being “too sensitive” or “projecting.” This manipulation can distort the therapist’s perception of what is actually happening.

If the therapist lacks deep training in coercive dynamics, they may accept the abuser’s narrative, inadvertently reinforcing their position of power. The victim, seeing their truth dismissed once again, can leave therapy feeling smaller, silenced, and more hopeless than before.

Safety and Retaliation Concerns

Even the safest therapy room cannot protect a victim from what happens when they go home. Speaking up in a joint session, even gently, can trigger retaliation later. The abuser may accuse their partner of embarrassment or betrayal. What begins as a moment of courage in the therapy room can become a source of punishment behind closed doors.

This fear often keeps victims quiet. They learn that honesty carries consequences, even in spaces meant for healing.

The Therapist’s Misguided Focus

Therapists without specialist training sometimes encourage the victim to adjust their behaviour to prevent conflict: to stay calm, avoid “triggers,” or be more understanding of their partner’s trauma history. While often well-meant, this advice places responsibility for change on the person being harmed.

It reinforces the idea that the victim’s actions can control the abuser’s behaviour, the very illusion that sustains the abuse. In truth, only the abuser can choose to stop being abusive.

Misuse of Therapy for Coercion

Joint therapy can also become a setting for coerced “compromise.” Under pressure to find balance, therapists might broker agreements that appear fair but deepen control.

Carol Lambert, in her book Women with Controlling Partners, offers an example where a therapist suggested that a man stop intimidating his partner if she reduced time spent with her friends. The result was not peace but isolation. The abuser’s threat of intimidation was legitimised, and the woman’s support network shrank. Such interventions, though framed as negotiation, function as another tool of coercion.

Abuse Is Not a Shared Responsibility

Abusers excel at reframing abuse as mutual dysfunction. They often claim both partners “have issues,” which redirects focus away from their behaviour. Therapists, trained to seek balance and neutrality, may unconsciously validate this reframing. The victim then appears complicit in the abuse, a distortion that compounds their trauma.

Couples therapy can be transformative in relationships where both partners are safe and willing to grow. It can rebuild communication, address individual wounds, and strengthen emotional connection. But abuse changes everything. The moment one person’s power eclipses the other’s autonomy, the conditions for mutual work vanish.

Change in an abuser does not come from exploring “relationship issues.” It begins only when the perpetrator takes full responsibility for their behaviour, and when they step outside the illusion that their partner’s actions caused it.

Ineffective Therapeutic Outcomes

When abusers agree to therapy, it is often because it provides cover. They can claim they are “trying” while using sessions to monitor or criticise their partner. If the therapist begins to see through their behaviour, the abuser may accuse their partner of turning the therapist against them. This deflection preserves their self-image and maintains control.

Many controlling partners prefer couples therapy over individual work because attending alone implies personal responsibility, something they are unwilling to accept.

Alternative Approaches

Recognising the risks of joint therapy does not mean abandoning all hope of help. It means seeking help that is appropriate and safe.

Specialised Programmes for Abusers

Abusive behaviour is not a symptom of poor anger control or unresolved childhood pain. It is a pattern rooted in entitlement and power. Specialised intervention programmes are designed to confront those patterns directly, challenging the beliefs that sustain abuse. Such programmes focus on accountability and behavioural change, outcomes that general psychotherapy rarely achieves in this context.

Individual Therapy for the Victim

For victims, individual therapy can provide safety, validation, and space to heal without the abuser’s presence. The work focuses on rebuilding self-trust, processing trauma, and restoring a sense of agency. Away from manipulation, survivors can begin to reframe their reality and reconnect with who they are outside the relationship.

Avoiding Individual Therapy for the Abuser

Traditional one-to-one therapy for abusers often fails because it relies on honesty and insight, qualities an abuser may weaponise rather than develop. Some use therapy to learn psychological terminology, then deploy it to dissect their partner’s perceived flaws or undermine their credibility. Without a specialist framework that directly confronts abusive beliefs, individual therapy can make an abuser more sophisticated in manipulation, not less.

Rethinking Therapy Practices

The widespread use of couples therapy in abusive relationships demands serious re-evaluation. Therapy should never become a stage on which abuse continues under professional supervision. Protecting victims means reshaping how therapists are trained, how referrals are made, and how responsibility is assigned.

Abuse is not a relational problem. It is a misuse of power. Until this is universally understood within therapeutic settings, victims will continue to be harmed by interventions that mistake domination for dysfunction.

Therapists, educators, and policy-makers must collaborate to ensure all practitioners are equipped to recognise the difference. The focus must shift from repairing the relationship to restoring safety, autonomy, and justice. Only then can therapy fulfil its purpose, not by reconciling the irreconcilable, but by helping survivors rebuild their lives free from control.

References

Katz, E. (2022). Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives. Oxford University Press.

Lambert, C. (2016). Women with Controlling Partners: Taking Back Your Life from a Manipulative or Abusive Partner. Berkeley, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Featured image: Couples therapy is not recommended for an abusive relationship. Credit: terovesalainen / Adobe Stock.