wellbeing

a place for tending well-being. just to have a place where I can locate things.

Post-separation abuse as a continuation of coercive control and intimate-partner/domestic violence.

2001: crisis + separation → the coercive controller becomes an institutional narrator of my mental state.

2019: crisis + acute medical condition → the coercive controller again becomes an institutional narrator of my mental state—to medical providers and to the attorney controlling my legal defense.

Across two major episodes of vulnerability, separated by eighteen years, the coercive controller assumed a position of authority as the person explaining me to institutions. His descriptions could then shape how medical and legal professionals understood my behavior, mental state, and capacity. In 2019, this occurred alongside contemporaneous medical evidence from my treating psychiatrist identifying a confirmed UTI and delirium as the likely primary explanation for the acute presentation. Letter_Dr.Griffith copy

Post-separation: I am discovering these communications and records and undertaking the work of reconstructing what happened and correcting the resulting institutional narrative.

The pattern can therefore be expressed as:

2001 → The coercive controller narrates me to the psychiatric institution.
2019 → The coercive controller narrates me to the psychiatric system and my attorney.
Post-separation → I discover the extent of that narrative control and undertake the work of recovering my own history and correcting the institutional record.

Viewed through the research framework of post-separation abuse as a continuation of coercive control and intimate-partner/domestic violence, the question is whether control that operated interpersonally during the relationship subsequently continued through institutional narrative, legal processes, economic consequences, and other systemsafter separation.

2001: During the involuntary hospitalization occurring in the context of separation, cc supplies the hospital with information about you. The hospital records his characterization that you had become “more intense” and that he feared that if you separated you would be unable to function on your own. 

at the time we were actively separating and he was pushing me to get my name off the deed of the house.

2019: The pattern appears again. During another acute crisis, cc supplies information about your psychiatric history to the treating system. Dr. G.'s letter actually distinguishes some of his information from her own findings: she writes that the cc provided information concerning your UTI symptoms, while her testing subsequently confirmed the UTI. Most importantly, Dr. G. herself concluded that the UTI precipitated the behavior leading to the arrest and impaired your judgment, and later called it the likely “ultimate cause” of the presentation. 

At essentially the same time, cc sends the attorney a lengthy psychiatric narrative. He discusses bipolar disorder, medication history, cannabis, psychiatric hospitalization, family mental-health history, childhood trauma and what treatment he thinks you require. 

So the repeated structure I see is:

2001: crisis + separation → c.c. becomes an institutional narrator of your mental state.

2019: crisis + separation/conflict → c.c. again becomes an institutional narrator of your mental state → to medical providers and the attorney controlling your legal defense.

And 2019 gives you something you apparently did not have in 2001: a contemporaneous treating psychiatrist's opinion against which his narrative can be tested. Dr. G. attributed the acute presentation principally to the confirmed UTI/delirium, not simply to an underlying psychiatric disorder. 

That is where I would connect this to coercive control.

The potential pattern isn't merely “cc said inaccurate things about me.” It is:

During two major episodes of vulnerability, separated by eighteen years, cc assumed a position of authority as the person explaining me to institutions. His descriptions could then shape how medical and legal professionals understood my behavior and capacity. In 2019, this occurred despite contemporaneous medical evidence identifying a confirmed UTI and delirium as the likely primary explanation for the acute presentation.

Then, after final separation, you are describing having to discover, reconstruct and attempt to correct institutional records and legal consequences arising partly from narratives created during the relationship.

That is why “post-separation abuse as a continuation of coercive control and intimate-partner/domestic violence” is the research framework worth examining. The abuse need not look the same after separation. The question is whether control migrates from direct interpersonal control into economic, reputational, medical, legal or institutional systems.

And I think “narrative control” should become a specific thread in your coercive-control chronology:

2001 → cc narrates me to psychiatric institution.
2019 → cc narrates me to psychiatric system and attorney.
Post-separation → I discover those communications/records and undertakes the work of recovering her own history and correcting the institutional narrative.

The documents support the first two propositions. Whether the entire sequence legally or clinically constitutes coercive control/post-separation abuse is the conclusion to be built from the full evidence, but the repetition itself is now something concrete you can document rather than merely infer.