Cross-Examination Tactics in Domestic Violence Cases: Yes-or-No Question Formats

Over the years, I've noticed a trend. In Domestic Abuse cases, and in the Post-Separation Period, Attorneys that represent Perpetrating Fathers often use "yes-or-no questions" when cross-examining a Protective Mother/Survivor.

To be clear: they do this to control the courtroom, to overwhelm the Court, to distort the truth and to limit the Protective Mother's ability to provide context around what she/her children have survived, all in a deliberate effort to undermine her credibility. 

Below, I provide a breakdown of this type of strategy and I highlight its impact on the Legal Process. I also highlight strategies that Protective Moms/their Attorneys can implement to (hopefully) create a more effective counter-strategy in response to these tactics:

Attorneys that represent Perpetrating Fathers in Domestic Violence and/or Family Court Cases are known to use aggressive tactics to humiliate a Protective Mother/Survivor. They use these tactics to undermine her credibility, destabilize her emotionally/mentally/physically, and - most alarmingly - to sway the Court's perception in favor of their Client, who is an Abuser. They do this shamelessly and with no regard for the minor children, who are also Survivors of Domestic Abuse.

To be clear: these tactics are strategic, they are exploitative, they feed into the power imbalances between the Protective Mother/Survivor, The System and the Perpetrator/Abuser.

Context of these Aggressive Tactics

In Family Court Cases, the Mother’s testimony/character is often under scrutiny. Her credibility - or lack thereof - is central to determining issues like Custody, Protection Orders, and/or Abuse Allegations. Opposing Counsel knows this, which is why they will work very diligently towards compromising the Mother's credibility. 

Opposing Counsel will employ humiliation tactics, in order to portray the Mother/Survivor as unreliable, unstable, or unfit, thereby weakening her case. These tactics are particularly prevalent in the Post-Separation Period, where the Perpetrator leverages the Legal System to maintain control, often through Vexatious Litigation, and by engaging in an Abuse of Process.

The courtroom, believed by many to be a place of Justice, is most often a place for re-traumatization for the Protective Mother, particularly when she is on the witness stand. This is especially true when Opposing Counsel leverages gendered stereotypes to paint a Protective Mother as hysterical, alienating, vindicating, cruel, mentally ill, etc. and/or manipulates the Mother's/children's trauma responses.

The Tactics/Language that Opposing Counsel will use to Humiliate a Mother, in a Yes-or-No Context:

• Tactics and Language Used: Opposing Counsel will use rapid, restrictive yes-or-no questions to trap the Mother into providing oversimplified or misleading answers. For example, Opposing Counsel may ask, "Did you ever yell at your partner?” which ignores the context of self-defense (frequently referred to as Reactive Abuse, a term I do not endorse) and ongoing poking and prodding/provocation of the Mother, who has likely faced isolation, financial deprivation, sleep deprivation and/or physical violence and/or the threat of it by the Perpetrating Father.
• Tactics and Language Used by Opposing Counsel: Opposing Counsel's objective will be to make Mom appear uncooperative and/or evasive, if she tries to explain herself. They will also paint her as aggressive/unstable, if she answers affirmatively. This tactic publicly shames her by stripping away her self-agency and the nuance of her experiences. For example, Opposing Counsel may ask, "Did you call the police multiple times?” which implies that the Mother is overly dramatic, inappropriate and an alarmist. This type of question conveniently ignores the Perpetrator's Patterns of Behavior and the Patterns of Abuse that necessitates those types of calls. 
• Tactics and Language Used by Opposing Counsel: Opposing Counsel will often question the Mother's parenting skills, by suggesting she is mentally unfit. They will often use her lifestyle choices against her, to depict her as unreliable. For instance, they might highlight missed school events, framing them as neglect or instability. By publicly naming her personal struggles, especially those caused by Abuse/Post-Separation Abuse (feelings of anxiety, isolation, financial strain, missed school days, missed appointments), they can make her feel like a failure as a parent, reinforcing the Perpetrator's narrative, and tripping her up in the courtroom setting. Opposing Counsel may say, "isn’t it true you couldn’t afford school supplies?” which conveniently ignores how the Perpetrator's Financial Abuse caused the hardship. It also conveniently ignores that the Mother, as the Primary Caretaker, shoulders more financial obligations than the Perpetrating Father, by default.
• Tactics and Language Used by Opposing Counsel: Opposing Counsel may downplay the Abuse or suggest the Mother exaggerated or fabricated it. Questions such as, “Wasn’t it just an argument?” or “You stayed with him, didn’t you?” imply the abuse wasn’t/isn't serious. They may also say, “You never sought medical treatment, so how bad could it have been?” which conveniently ignores the psychological/non-physical nature of Coercive Control. This tactic invalidates the Mother’s trauma in Open Court, destabilizing her. This tactic is leveraged in the hopes of provoking emotional reactions in the Mother, which Opposing Counsel may then leverage to portray her as unstable. 

Opposing Counsel will deliberately trigger the Mother’s trauma responses, by referencing abusive incidents in a cold, calculated and accusatory manner, hoping to elicit tears, anger, and confusion.

If the Protective Mother is "emotional" then her reactions are used to depict her as “hysterical” and “unhinged,” reinforcing biased stereotypes that undermine her credibility. This public shaming can mirror the Perpetrator's tactics, which intensifies her distress. This is deliberate.

Introducing Irrelevant Personal Details:

Opposing Counsel will also bring up unrelated, personal details (past relationships, social media posts, her work or dating history) to paint the Mother as immoral or irresponsible. By exposing these private details in Court, Opposing Counsel seeks to embarrass the Mother and distracts from the Abuse Allegations; the objective is to alienate the Judge/Jury by appealing to their biases about “proper” maternal and womanly behavior.

Opposing Counsel will claim the Mother is using Abuse Allegations to gain an advantage in Custody and/or Financial Disputes, portraying her as vindictive, a gold digger and deceitful. This tactic shames her for seeking Justice, implying her suffering is a calculated lie. It can also alienate her from the Court, which may view such accusations as evidence of bad faith.

• Undermine Credibility and Elicit Bias: By making the Mother appear unreliable, emotional, or vindictive, Opposing Counsel weakens her testimony and the weight of her allegations. 
• Shift Focus: Humiliating tactics divert attention from the Perpetrator's actions to the Mother’s reactions and perceived flaws, reframing the case around her behavior, instead of focusing on the topic at hand which is the Pre-and-Post Separation Abuse.
• Intimidate and Control: Public humiliation can pressure the Mother to withdraw, settle, or doubt her own case, mirroring Pre-and-Post-Separation Abuse Dynamics.
• Influence the Court: Judges and juries may unconsciously adopt biases against a mother who appears “unstable” or “uncooperative,” impacting rulings on Custody, Protection orders, and more.

This is an Abuse of Process and has Detrimental Impacts Mothers and the Legal Process

These tactics re-traumatize Protective Moms/Survivor, impairing their ability to testify and/or parent effectively.

Public humiliation can make Mothers feel that the Legal System is complicit in their Abuse, discouraging them from seeking Justice or reporting future abuse.

When the Mother’s credibility is unfairly tarnished, Courts may make decisions (ie. granting custody to the Perpetrator) that endanger her and her children.

By the Perpetrator to weaponize the Courts, these tactics extend Post-Separation Coercive Control, undermining the Court’s role as a Protector.

As a Proactive Protective Mom, I believe you can counter these tactics. Here are some strategies you may want to implement:

• Preparation: Always, always, always work with your/a Licensed Attorney. My hope is that you can prepare and anticipate these aggressive tactics with your Counsel. Practice calm, concise responses. Know Your Language. Ask them if they will role-play cross-examination with you, so you can build confidence.
• Documentation: Consider maintaining detailed records of abuse (texts, police reports, photographs) to counter attempts to minimize or discredit allegations.
• Expert Witnesses: If you have access to third-party professionals (therapists, domestic violence advocates) to explain trauma responses and the dynamics of Coercive Control, maybe they can provide context for your choices,.
• Objections: Can your counsel object to irrelevant or harassing questions? Can they ask the Judge to allow fuller answers or redirect the focus? 
• Community Support: Leverage platforms like ours to provide emotional and strategic support, helping all of us feel validated and supported.
• Judicial Awareness: Continue to Advocate for Judges to be trained on Domestic Violence and Post-Separation Abuse. Kayden's Law should be implemented in all 50 states. 

By equipping Protective Moms with “Talking Points” and strategic tools, we are directly countering the humiliation and disempowerment these tactics impose upon us. We are fostering resilience and systemic change. 

I am with you.

I have been there and I look forward to the day where these tactics are not permitted.

Let's get to work!

In Solidarity,

Kaitlyn

This blog post is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. I am not an attorney, and the content shared here is inspired by my lived experiences. You should consult a qualified attorney for legal advice specific to your situation.