The Power and Control Wheel is a visual framework developed in Duluth, Minnesota in the 1980s by Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar. It maps the behaviours used by an abusive person to maintain power and control, grouped around an outer ring with “Power and Control” at the centre.

The Duluth wheel frames the perpetrator as male and the victim as female. It is widely used by CAFCASS, social work services, police and the family courts in the UK.

The Power and Control Wheel at thepowerandcontrolwheel.co.uk applies this framework without a gendered frame, consistent with the peer-reviewed research evidence that abuse is not primarily a male behaviour.

Source: Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), Duluth, Minnesota. theduluthmodel.org

• Coercion and threats
• Intimidation
• Emotional abuse
• Isolation
• Minimising, denying and blaming
• Using children
• Economic abuse
• Entitlement / privilege

Note: the original Duluth wheel names “male privilege” as the eighth spoke. Non-gendered versions replace this with “entitlement” — the belief that one person has the right to control another.

Source: theduluthmodel.org

The Duluth Model is embedded in CAFCASS practice, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and much of the statutory response to domestic abuse in the UK. It has attracted significant academic criticism. Its gendered framing is not supported by the peer-reviewed evidence base. Research consistently shows abuse occurs across genders in broadly equal proportions. The framework for identifying abusive behaviours remains valid. The gendered framing does not.

Sources: Straus, M.A. (2010). Partner Abuse, 1(3). Harman et al. (2019). Psychological Bulletin. Hine et al. (2023). Journal of Family Violence.

Yes. Several non-gendered adaptations retain the eight-spoke structure but replace “male privilege” with “entitlement.” The Duluth Model also produced an Equality Wheel. Both at theduluthmodel.org.

Narcissistic abuse is a pattern of manipulation, control, exploitation and psychological harm following idealisation, devaluation, then discard. Within that cycle: gaslighting, isolation, emotional manipulation, projection, DARVO, triangulation and intermittent reinforcement. It occurs in intimate partner relationships, family systems, workplaces, faith communities and social groups.

Sources: Bancroft, L. (2002). Why Does He Do That? Freyd, J.J. (1997). Feminism & Psychology, 7(1).

NPD is a diagnosable condition in the DSM-5 and ICD-11. A diagnosis requires five or more of nine criteria:

• Grandiose sense of self-importance
• Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power or brilliance
• Belief in being special or unique
• Requirement for excessive admiration
• Sense of entitlement
• Interpersonal exploitation
• Lack of empathy
• Envy of others, or belief others envy them
• Arrogant or haughty attitudes

A person does not need an NPD diagnosis for narcissistic abuse to be real and harmful. NPD exists on a spectrum and frequently co-occurs with other Cluster B personality disorders.

Sources: American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5. WHO (2019). ICD-11.

Overt (grandiose) narcissism is the more visible type — dominant, boastful, entitled, easily recognised.

Covert (vulnerable) narcissism is significantly harder to identify. The covert narcissist may appear shy, self-effacing, quietly put-upon, or as the one who has been wronged. The same core traits are present but expressed through martyrdom, passive-aggression, sulking and playing the victim. Within the inner circle the damage can be just as severe as the overt type — and often more so because it is difficult to name and easy for others to disbelieve.

In professional settings such as court, CAFCASS interviews or school meetings, a covert narcissist may present as calm and credible while the targeted person appears emotional or unstable. This dynamic — DARVO — is well-documented in the research literature.

Sources: Wink, P. (1991). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4). Miller, J.D. et al. (2011). Journal of Personality, 79(5).

Cluster B is the “dramatic, emotional or erratic” cluster in the DSM-5:

• Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) — grandiosity, entitlement, lack of empathy
• Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD/EUPD) — emotional dysregulation, fear of abandonment, unstable identity
• Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) — disregard for the rights of others
• Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) — excessive emotionality and attention-seeking

Co-morbidity within Cluster B is common.

Source: American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

A person with NPD typically has emotional responses — shame, humiliation, rage — and reactive behaviour. A person with psychopathy has a more profound structural absence of empathy with callous disregard and calculated behaviour. A psychopath is by definition also a narcissist. A narcissist is not necessarily a psychopath. “Malignant narcissist” (Kernberg) describes a combination of NPD, antisocial behaviour, aggression and sadism — a more dangerous configuration.

Sources: Hare, R.D. (1993). Without Conscience. Guilford Press. Babiak & Hare (2006). Snakes in Suits. Paulhus & Williams (2002). Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6).

Psychopathy has a neurobiological basis. Brain imaging has identified structural and functional differences in connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the amygdala (Koenigs et al., 2011). These differences appear to be present from early in life.

NPD involves a gene–environment interaction. A genetic predisposition (23–59% of the trait) is shaped by early childhood experiences. The fact that NPD may have roots in a difficult childhood does not transfer responsibility for the harm caused.

Sources: Koenigs, M. et al. (2011). Journal of Neuroscience, 31(48). BMC Psychiatry (2024). doi:10.1186/s12888-024-06307-9.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person is made to question their own perception, memory and sanity. In narcissistic abuse it involves persistent denial of events, distortion of what was said, dismissal of the target’s responses, and the creation of a false reality. Over time it erodes the target’s trust in their own mind.

Source: Sweet, P.L. (2019). American Sociological Review, 84(5). Serious Crime Act 2015, s.76.

Trauma bonding is a psychological response to intermittent abuse and reward cycles in which a person develops a strong emotional attachment to the person harming them. The cycle activates the same neurochemical processes as addiction. It is not a character flaw. It is a neurobiological response to a specific pattern of harm.

Sources: Dutton, D.G. & Painter, S. (1981). Victimology, 6. Carnes, P. (1997). The Betrayal Bond.

Yes — and this is one of the most important and most underrecognised mechanisms in parental alienation.

Intermittent reinforcement: The alienating parent alternates between warmth and withdrawal, activating the same dopamine and stress response as adult trauma bonds.

Shared narrative and identity: The co-constructed story about the targeted parent becomes part of the child’s own identity. Questioning it feels like self-destruction.

Shared emotive memory formation: Emotionally charged experiences with the alienating parent are encoded as vivid memories (McGaugh, 2004). The child’s emotional landscape is asymmetric in a way that feels like evidence.

Enmeshment: The alienating parent treats the child as a confidant. The child’s sense of worth becomes bound up in the gatekeeping parent’s approval.

A child’s strongly felt rejection of a targeted parent may be evidence of what has been done to the child, not of what that parent has done.

Sources: Baker, A.J.L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome. W.W. Norton. McGaugh, J.L. (2004). Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27. Harman, J.J. et al. (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12).

Stage 1 — Idealisation (love bombing): Intense attention, affection, mirroring and validation. Creates the baseline the target spends the rest of the relationship trying to return to.

Stage 2 — Devaluation: Withdrawal of warmth, criticism, contempt, gaslighting, blame-shifting. Interspersed with mini-idealisations that reset the cycle.

Stage 3 — Discard and hoovering: Mini-discards happen throughout the relationship, followed by hoovering. This is the engine of the trauma bond.

Stage 4 — The shelf and the relationship that does not end: The target was an object providing supply. When the relationship ends, the object representation does not cease to exist. Hoovering may come months or years later. For survivors who share children, this stage does not pass.

The reproduced script: What felt like a unique personal experience was likely a reproduced pattern applied to a new target.

Sources: Kernberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Bates, L. & Hine, B. (2023). MDPI Social Sciences, 14(1).

Grey rock: Give only factual minimal responses, show no emotional reaction.

Yellow rock: A modified version for co-parenting — slightly warmer, child-focused tone while maintaining clear limits on personal disclosure.

The mask drops: For the overt narcissist this tends to be dramatic. For the covert narcissist it is far more subtle — a barely perceptible shift in tone, a momentary edge of disdain. These moments matter — they are often the only external evidence survivors have that what they experience privately is real.

Duper’s delight (Ekman): the involuntary flash of pleasure when successfully deceiving someone.

Contempt is distinct from ordinary criticism. Gottman identifies it as the single strongest predictor of relational harm.

Sources: Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions Revealed. Times Books. Gottman, J.M. & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, abuse includes:

• Physical or sexual abuse
• Violent or threatening behaviour
• Controlling or coercive behaviour (Serious Crime Act 2015, s.76)
• Economic abuse — adversely affecting a person’s ability to acquire, use or maintain money
• Psychological, emotional or other abuse

The Act extended the definition to include children as victims in their own right. Coercive control carries up to five years imprisonment.

Sources: Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Serious Crime Act 2015, s.76.

Parental alienation describes the process by which a child is manipulated — through the systematic behaviour of one parent — into rejecting, fearing or refusing contact with the other parent, without legitimate cause. The child is not only turned against the targeted parent but denied the psychological freedom to love, think about or include that parent without fear. The targeted parent is effectively erased from the child’s emotional world.

Parental alienation is understood in the research literature as a form of child abuse and intimate partner violence. The consequences extend far beyond childhood.

Sources: Harman, J.J., Kruk, E. & Hines, D.A. (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12). Baker, A.J.L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome. W.W. Norton.

No. The behaviours that constitute parental alienation are recognised and documented in a substantial peer-reviewed literature.

The FJC’s misrepresentation of Hine et al. (2023): The December 2024 FJC Guidance implied alienating behaviours resulting in alienation are rare. Dr Ben Hine publicly pushed back: the research does not say that. His 2–4% figures represent a very large number of families at population level.

CAFCASS and the child’s voice: CAFCASS places significant weight on the child’s expressed wishes. In alienation cases the child’s voice has been hijacked — the views expressed are the product of sustained conditioning. In the most serious cases, the child’s expressed preference is effectively a hostage statement.

Parental estrangement: Genuine estrangement by an adult child making an autonomous decision is entirely different from a child conditioned to reject a parent who poses no genuine risk.

The Harlow research: Harlow’s primate experiments (1958) showed that when infant monkeys were subjected to harm by surrogate mothers, the attachment bond was strengthened, not weakened. Children who are genuinely abused by a parent do not typically reject that parent. A child who completely rejects a parent who has not harmed them is displaying the inverse of what attachment research predicts.

Sources: Harman, J.J. et al. (2024). Taylor & Francis. Hine, B. et al. (2023). Journal of Family Violence. Hine, B. (December 2024). drbenhine.wordpress.com. Harlow, H.F. (1958). American Psychologist, 13(12). Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Basic Books.

Parental alienation is not named as a specific offence in UK legislation. However, coercive and controlling behaviour is a criminal offence under the Serious Crime Act 2015 (s.76), and parental alienating behaviours can constitute coercive control. The family courts can make and enforce Child Arrangement Orders.

Sources: Serious Crime Act 2015, s.76. Children Act 1989. cafcass.gov.uk

Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 created a legal presumption that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life would further the child’s welfare. On 22 October 2025, the UK Government announced its intention to repeal this presumption (Written Ministerial Statement, Baroness Levitt KC). For targeted parents, the removal potentially creates a new barrier — courts will no longer assume contact with both parents is beneficial. Check bills.parliament.uk for current legislative status.

Sources: Written Ministerial Statement, Baroness Levitt KC, 22 October 2025. questions-statements.parliament.uk.

C100 — the application form for a Child Arrangements Order. Applicants must generally attend a MIAM first. Download from: gov.uk/government/publications/form-c100-application-under-the-children-act-1989

Section 7 report — a welfare report prepared by CAFCASS or a local authority social worker, ordered by the family court. Includes interviews with both parents and the child and welfare recommendations to the court.

C1A — an allegation of harm form submitted with a C100 when alleging domestic abuse. Triggers Practice Direction 12J. Download from: gov.uk/government/publications/form-c1a-allegations-of-harm-and-domestic-violence

Sources: Children Act 1989, s.7. Practice Direction 12J. cafcass.gov.uk

CAFCASS — the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service — is an independent public body that safeguards and promotes the welfare of children involved in family court proceedings in England. CAFCASS officers carry out welfare checks, write Section 7 reports, act as Children’s Guardians, and make recommendations to the court. CAFCASS Cymru is the equivalent service in Wales. For current information: cafcass.gov.uk

No. There is no absolute legal right for a parent to spend time with their child under English and Welsh law. The right belongs to the child — the right to have a relationship with both parents where that is in the child’s best interests. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 places the child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration.

Source: Children Act 1989, s.1(1).

No. The peer-reviewed research consistently shows that mothers and fathers perpetrate and are targeted by parental alienating behaviours in broadly equal proportions. Fathers are statistically more likely to be the targeted parent not because mothers alienate more, but because structural factors create greater vulnerability for non-resident parents. Targeted mothers are among the most invisible people in the family justice system.

Sources: Harman, J.J. et al. (2019). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12). Hine, B. et al. (2023). Journal of Family Violence. Harman, J.J. & Lorandos, D. (2021). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4).

Some children come back. Some do not. There is no reliable way to predict which it will be for your child.

Research by Dr Amy Baker on adults who were alienated as children shows that many do eventually seek out the targeted parent — often in adulthood, once they are no longer under the direct influence of the alienating parent. But the timeline varies enormously. It may be years. Even when contact does resume, it rarely follows the pattern targeted parents hope for. A child may make contact, meet you, and then go quiet again. That one meeting may have been what they needed at that point.

Why some do not come back: the child’s nervous system, attachment system and developing identity all reorganised around the reality they were given — because that was the only way to survive. That reorganisation runs deep. Undoing it requires safety, time and internal resources the child may not yet have. The continued presence of the alienating parent or network, the depth and duration of the conditioning, and the psychological cost of reopening something that has been sealed are all real factors.

Consider what you went through as an adult — with some capacity to reason, to seek support, to make sense of what was happening. You were still profoundly affected. That child had none of that capacity. They adapted because it was the only option available to them.

What tends to help: maintaining a stable, findable presence. Not repeatedly reaching out when they have signalled they need space. Not posting publicly about what happened in ways that can reach them. Leaving the door open is different from holding it open by force.

The grief involved does not have a clean endpoint. But your life does not have to wait for their return to have meaning or stability. Building something secure is not giving up on them. It is also the most practical thing you can do — because if they do come back, it matters what they find.

Sources: Baker, A.J.L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome. W.W. Norton. Harman, J.J. et al. (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12). Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3. Basic Books.

ACEs are traumatic events before age 18 that significantly impact long-term health. The ACE Study (Felitti & Anda, Kaiser Permanente/CDC, 1995–1997) identified ten categories: physical, emotional and sexual abuse; physical and emotional neglect; and household dysfunction including domestic violence witnessed, mental illness, substance abuse, parental separation, and incarceration. Each category scores one point. An ACE score of four or more is associated with significantly elevated risk of heart disease, cancer, depression, substance misuse and suicide attempts.

Sources: Felitti, V.J. et al. (1998). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4). CDC: cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html

Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 1994, 2011) identifies three primary nervous system states: ventral vagal (safe and social, learning-ready), sympathetic (fight or flight, visible distress), and dorsal vagal (shutdown or freeze). A child in dorsal vagal shutdown can appear calm, compliant, even capable. Internally they are in a state of profound dysregulation.

Fawning — a fourth stress response (Walker, 2013) — occurs when a child has learned that compliance is the only safe strategy. That child will often appear fine in school. They are masking. Teachers are trained to identify the sympathetic child. The functionally frozen or fawning child is largely invisible to standard safeguarding frameworks.

Sources: Porges, S.W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory. W.W. Norton. Walker, P. (2013). Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving.

Those with four or more ACEs are, compared to those with none, 4–12 times more likely to develop alcoholism, drug abuse, depression or attempt suicide. Six ACEs can reduce life expectancy by 20 years (Public Health England). ACEs disrupt brain development during critical windows — affecting the HPA axis, cortisol regulation and the nervous system’s threat-response calibration.

Sources: Felitti, V.J. et al. (1998). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4). Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University: developingchild.harvard.edu

Family scapegoating describes the dynamic in which one family member is designated as the cause of the family’s problems and receives its frustration, shame and projected dysfunction. In a narcissistic family system the scapegoat becomes the repository for everything the family cannot own. A golden child — idealised and protected — is often present as the mirror image.

The golden child’s position is not as secure as it appears. Their status is conditional — maintained through compliance and alignment. Roles shift: the golden child can temporarily occupy the scapegoat position when they fail to meet expectations. No child in the system is genuinely secure, including the one who appears most favoured.

Sources: McBride, J. (2008). Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Pressman, R.M. & Pressman, S. (1994). The Narcissistic Family.

• Chronic shame and deep-seated belief in personal defectiveness
• Difficulty trusting their own perceptions
• Complex PTSD (C-PTSD) — emotional dysregulation, relational difficulties, distorted self-perception
• Elevated ACE scores and associated health risks
• Difficulty with boundaries
• Tendency to attract relationships that replicate the scapegoat dynamic

Recovery is possible. It requires support that names the dynamic accurately and addresses the shame, distorted self-perception and nervous system impact of years of sustained harm.

Sources: Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books. Walker, P. (2013). Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving.

Spiritual abuse occurs when religious belief, spiritual authority, faith community culture or scripture is used to manipulate, control, harm or silence another person. It can include: using scripture to justify abuse; using spiritual consequences to control behaviour; shunning those who speak out; using confession structures to monitor; creating environments where questioning leadership equates to sin.

Sources: Johnson, D. & VanVonderen, J. (1991). The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. Oakwood.

Across the major Abrahamic traditions, abuse and injustice are consistently condemned in scripture. In the Christian tradition: Jesus explicitly condemned those who harm vulnerable people (Matthew 18:6). Paul’s description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 — patient, kind, not self-seeking, not keeping a record of wrongs — is the opposite of the narcissistic abuse cycle. Ephesians 5 commands mutual submission modelled on self-sacrifice, not domination (Micah 6:8; Isaiah 1:17; Proverbs 31:8–9).

A cult uses systematic psychological manipulation to control its members, suppress critical thinking, create dependency, and punish dissent. Dr Robert Lifton’s research (1961) identified eight criteria including milieu control, mystical manipulation, demand for purity, and loading the language. Steven Hassan’s BITE Model (Behaviour, Information, Thought, Emotional control) provides a more recent framework. The overlap with narcissistic abuse is significant.

Sources: Lifton, R.J. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. W.W. Norton. Hassan, S. (1988). Combating Cult Mind Control. BITE Model: freedomofmind.com.