Abuse Behaviours → Neurological Effects → Legal & Safeguarding Relevance**

Abusive Behaviour	Documented Neurological Effect	Impact on Survivor Behaviour	Legal & Safeguarding Relevance
Stonewalling / Silent Treatment	↑ Amygdala activation; ↓ mPFC regulation	Hypervigilance, cognitive freeze, anxiety, difficulty thinking clearly	Explains confusion, non-linear recall, emotional instability during interviews
Refusal to Answer Questions (“You’re guessing, you’ll never know”)	Hippocampal suppression due to chronic stress	Memory fragmentation; learned self-doubt; impaired contextual recall	Memory gaps are neurological symptoms, not deception
Isolation Within the Home	Reduced vagal tone; increased stress hormones	Shutdown, dissociation, impaired decision-making	Survivor appears passive or emotionally flat—not unreliability
Unpredictable Withdrawal of Communication	Disrupted threat appraisal system	Survivor may appear clingy, confused, or excessively seeking clarity	Not fixation—trauma-induced need for safety cues
Emotional Withholding / Conditional Affection	Limbic overactivation; cortisol cycling	Heightened dependency; difficulty leaving the abuser	Supports evidence of coercive control and trauma bonding
Financial Control	Chronic anxiety—long-term cortisol exposure	Decision paralysis; impaired planning; risk avoidance	Explains apparent “helplessness” or delayed escape
Intermittent Reinforcement (Punishment → Reward)	Addiction-like dopamine loop conditioning	Difficulty breaking free; oscillating emotions	Predictable trauma-bond cycle recognised in coercive control cases
Gaslighting / Reality Distortion	Disrupted hippocampal encoding	Confusion, distorted timelines, self-blame	Memory inconsistencies reflect cognitive injury
Threat-Based Intimidation (direct or implied)	Hyperactive amygdala	Startle response; panic; avoidance behaviours	Behavioural changes interpreted as fear responses, not exaggeration
Chronic Arguments Ending in Withdrawal	Hippocampal atrophy (in severe long-term cases)	Long-term cognitive fog; memory fragmentation	MRI evidence strengthens abuse claims
Emotional Deprivation Over Years	Reduced neurogenesis; mPFC suppression	Difficulty accessing emotions; flattened affect	Survivor’s “lack of emotion” is neurological—not indifference
Hostile Ambiguity (“You’ll never know”)	Reinforced stress pathways	Chronic uncertainty; obsessive checking; doubt	Supports findings of coercive control and psychological destabilisation

---

Key Professional Interpretations

1. Memory fragmentation is neurological, not behavioural.

Courts must not misinterpret inconsistent timelines as dishonesty.

2. Flat affect or emotional numbness is a trauma adaptation.

Not a sign of emotional instability.

3. Delayed departure from the abuser reflects neurobiological conditioning.

Not consent, weakness, or complicity.

4. MRI findings (where present) provide objective corroboration.

Particularly in cases involving long-term coercive control.

5. Trauma-influenced responses must be accommodated in interviews.

Survivors require regulated questioning and additional processing time.