Coercive Control and Child Criminal Exploitation: The Framework We’re Missing

Child criminal exploitation (CCE) is typically framed through the language of gangs, violence and organised crime. It is analysed in terms of drug markets, county lines and youth offending. What is far less common is the application of a coercive control framework - despite the fact that many of the mechanisms involved are extremely similar to those seen in domestic abuse.

Coercive control is now well understood within intimate partner violence. It describes a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate, isolate and subordinate another person. It may include surveillance, financial restriction, threats, humiliation, intimidation and the creation of dependency. It does not require constant physical violence. It is the sustained erosion of autonomy that defines it.

In practice, many of the cases we see involving child criminal exploitation operate through precisely these dynamics.

The mechanics look familiar

Across CCE cases, we regularly observe:

• Isolation from family, peers or positive influences
• Surveillance of movements and communications
• Threats directed at the child or their family
  Imposed debt, often linked to alleged lost drugs or police seizures
• Manufactured loyalty and conditional approval
  Alternating reward and punishment
• Normalisation of risk and criminality

None of this is incidental, it is structured. Yet in criminal justice contexts, these behaviours are rarely described as coercive control. Instead, they are reframed as “peer influence”, “street culture” or “poor decision-making”. Young people are described as “involved” or “associated”, rather than controlled.

The consequence is that behaviours shaped by fear or dependency are interpreted as voluntary participation.

Why this distinction matters legally

In modern slavery and exploitation cases, the key question is often not whether an offence occurred, but why it occurred.

Was the young person acting freely?
Did they genuinely have the ability to refuse?
How did fear, obligation and dependency shape their choices?

These are factual assessments that sit at the heart of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, public interest decisions and sentencing considerations. They are also central to safeguarding responses.

Where coercive control is not recognised, exploitation is more easily reduced to mitigation rather than affecting liability. It becomes something that “explains behaviour” rather than something that fundamentally shapes culpability.

The problem with surface normality

One reason coercive control is under-applied in CCE is that exploitation rarely presents as total confinement.
Young people may:

• Continue attending school intermittently
• Maintain friendships
• Spend time with family
• Appear confident or “streetwise”
• Demonstrate knowledge of criminal activity

None of this negates coercion. In domestic abuse contexts, we do not assume that a victim’s ability to leave the house, maintain employment or socialise eliminates the possibility of control. We recognise that control can coexist with apparent normality. The same analytical consistency should apply to CCE.

Developmental context

Adolescence adds another layer of complexity. Neurological development, risk perception, status-seeking and peer dynamics all shape decision-making. Where exploitation intersects with developmental immaturity, coercion can be particularly difficult to identify. Young people may not conceptualise their experiences as abusive. They may defend those exploiting them. They may minimise harm or normalise threat.

Understanding coercive control in this context requires professional curiosity and developmental awareness, not simplistic categorisation.

Moving forward

Reframing child criminal exploitation through a coercive control lens does not remove agency from young people. It situates behaviour within power dynamics.

If coercive control is recognised as a core mechanism in domestic abuse, it is difficult to justify its absence from discussions of CCE. The tools already exist. The question is whether we apply them consistently.

Without that shift, we risk misunderstanding behaviour, mischaracterising vulnerability and missing exploitation where it is present.