The abuse of technology by perpetrators of domestic violence is ‘spaceless’; however, in this article, we argue that experiences of and responses to digital coercive control are shaped by both the place (geographic location) and space (practical and ideological features of a location) that a victim/survivor and criminal justice agency occupy. We examined this issue by conducting interviews and focus groups with 13 female victim/survivors in regional, rural and remote Australia. All participants had contact with police as part of their help-seeking for domestic violence, and some suggested that officers sometimes paralleled perpetrator behaviours, resulting in a narrowing of women’s ‘space for action’. We conclude that, in the interests of protecting and empowering women, socio-spatial frameworks must be considered by practitioners and researchers, and there should be a concerted effort to expand resourcing and training for justice agencies beyond the cityscape.

Men's violence against women is a global human rights issue, with domestic violence one of the most common forms (World Health Organization, 2017). The consequences of domestic violence include detrimental effects on victim-survivors' health, well-being, and sense of safety. To understand these impacts, the concept of 'space for action' seeks to evaluate how perpetrators of domestic violence narrow women's life choices, constraining their freedom (Kelly, 2003). In this article, we build upon the concept of 'space for action' by examining if, and how, rural geographical space and place can be used by perpetrators to constrict women's options for escape, or even shape the violence itself. In conducting a meta-synthesis of 32 global studies, we found similarities in rural women's experiences of violence. Perpetrators used both geographical space and rural social norms to constrain women's space for action. In particular, geographical and social isolation were used to hold women in literal captivity. Rural communities were often experienced as shaming and ostracizing. This provided women with few opportunities to help-seek and aided perpetrators in reducing women's spaces for safety. Women's space for action was also curtailed in the realms of finance, employment, and their ability to care for their children. These findings demonstrate that geographical place and space can be used by perpetrators to narrow and limit women's space for action. As such, rurality should be included in understanding how men's violence limits women's freedoms.

Digital media and devices are increasingly used by perpetrators of interpersonal and domestic violence to enact harm, coerce and control. The ways that technology is used by perpetrators, victimsurvivors, support services and justice agencies have received growing attention in recent years. Work has been produced by advocates and academics in the United States (see Dimond, Fiesler & Bruckman 2011; Fraser et al. 2010; Mason & Magnet 2012; Southworth et al. 2005) and in Australia (Hand, Chung & Peters 2009; Woodlock 2017). There has been no examination of differences in the way harms manifest and are responded to in urban and non-urban (regional, rural and remote) landscapes (Harris 2016). This is a significant deficit, given the barriers encountered by victim–survivors beyond the cityscape when seeking assistance and responding to violence (Neilson & Renou 2015; Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland 2015; State of Victoria 2016).

This is the first article to analyze children’s involvement in technology-facilitated coercive control in Australia. The primary research question was ‘‘How do mothers describe their children’s involvement in technology-facilitated coercive control?”. This article is based on incidental findings from a larger study on Australian women’s experiences of technology-facilitated abuse in the context of domestic violence. Although children were not the focus of the study, semi-structured interviews with twelve mothers yielded discussion of children’s involvement in the abuse. We used thematic analysis to identify key dynamics and contexts of this abuse. We found that mothers and their children are co-victims of coercive control. Mothers interviewed for the study reported that children were involved in technology-facilitated coercive control directly and indirectly. This study bridges the gap between the extant research on children and coercive control and technology-facilitated abuse by highlighting the ways children are involved in technology-facilitated coercive control. The social and legal contexts of co-parenting with abusive fathers exposed mothers and children to ongoing post-separation abuse, extending abusive fathers’ absent presence in the lives of children.

Technology-facilitated domestic violence is an emerging issue for social workers and other service providers. The concept of Digital Coercive Control (DCC) is introduced to highlight the particular nature and impacts of technology-facilitated abuse in the context of domestic violence. While practitioners have become more adept at working with women experiencing DCC, there is still little known about its dynamics and whether this violence requires a change in current service responses. This article explores findings from survey research conducted with 546 Australian domestic violence practitioners about the ways perpetrators use technology as part of their abuse tactics. The findings demonstrate that DV practitioners believe perpetrator use of technology is extensive and has significant impacts on the safety of clients. A major dilemma faced by practitioners is how to promote and facilitate client safety from DCC while still enabling safe use of technology so clients can remain connected to family, friends, and community.

This article draws on interviews with 20 Australian women subjected to technology-facilitated coercive control (TFCC), foregrounding their accounts of grief and institutional betrayal. Findings show that while the harms of TFCC were significant, survivors’ experiences were often minimized and dismissed by justice institutions. Women experienced grief due to abuse and separation from partners who had betrayed them. This loss was compounded when seeking help. We propose that disenfranchised grief is an underexplored response to domestic violence and institutional betrayal as well as a potential intervention site, particularly in relation to technology-facilitated abuse.