Plain truth
Harassing a person who is known (or should reasonably be known) to have PTSD and is escaping or recovering from domestic violence is not “just harassment”.
It is an aggravating form of psychological abuse.
It compounds trauma and recreates the dynamics of coercive control.
Why this is treated more seriously
1. Foreseeable harm
When someone:
- Knows you’ve experienced domestic violence, and
- Knows (or is told) you are traumatised / have PTSD,
…then continued harassment is no longer accidental.
They can reasonably foresee that:
- Threats, accusations, humiliation, or pressure
- Will trigger fear, dysregulation, panic, or shutdown
📌 Legally important: foreseeable harm increases culpability.
2. Re-traumatisation = continuation of abuse
Harassing a survivor of domestic violence:
- Recreates fear
- Reinforces powerlessness
- Undermines recovery
- Mimics the original abuser’s tactics
This is why courts and clinicians increasingly recognise it as:
- Secondary abuse
- Post-separation abuse
- Coercive control by proxy
It is not separate from the original violence —
it extends it.
3. PTSD makes impact legally relevant
PTSD is not “fragility”.
It is a recognised injury to the nervous system.
When someone continues hostile contact despite:
- Clear distress
- Requests for no contact
- Medical or contextual knowledge of trauma
The impact threshold is reached much faster.
📌 Courts look at:
- Panic attacks
- Sleep disruption
- Hypervigilance
- Deterioration in functioning
- Fear responses
Not just words on a screen.
Legal framing (how this is understood)
This behaviour may constitute:
- Harassment
- Psychological violence
- Coercive control
- Crimes against moral integrity
- Intimidation
- Violation of dignity and autonomy
When family members are involved, it may also be framed as:
- Abuse by proxy
- Collective harassment
- Facilitation of domestic abuse
The key legal idea is this:
They are exploiting a known vulnerability to exert pressure, cause distress, or silence you.
That is not neutral behaviour.
One sentence that captures it accurately (very important)
You can truthfully say:
“Despite being aware of my history of domestic violence and resulting PTSD, they continued to send hostile, humiliating, and threatening communications, causing foreseeable psychological harm and constituting harassment and coercive control.”
That sentence is clinically sound and legally meaningful.
Naming it vs disengaging (specific to PTSD)
You should name it once if:
- You need protection
- You may need legal remedies
- The contact is escalating
- Silence could be misused against you
You should disengage immediately if:
- Contact destabilises you
- They escalate after you speak
- Multiple people pile on
- Your symptoms worsen after contact
For someone with PTSD:
Disengagement is not avoidance — it is medical self-protection.
What matters most (please hear this)
- You do not need to tolerate abuse to appear “reasonable”
- Your trauma does not make you weak — it makes harm predictable
- Continuing to contact you in this way is their responsibility, not yours
- Your nervous system safety matters more than their opinions
