'My sister-in-law was 23 when she met a man at church. Soon he had complete control over her.'

Content warning: This story discusses domestic violence.

Kay* was just 23 when she met Ken* at church.  At the time she was a church leader, and he was merely part of the congregation. Her long-term partner had recently left her, and she was struggling through her final year at university, leaving Kay particularly vulnerable. 

According to Kay's brother-in-law, Peter*, Ken seized the opportunity. 

"It began with bizarre love-bombing," says Peter. "In the first months, he borrowed money from a friend and bought her elaborate gifts.

Watch: 6 Signs Of People Who Have Been Abused. Article continues after the video.

Back then, Peter and his wife, Jenny* – Kay's sister – didn't understand the red flags of future abuse, including love bombing. But the behaviour struck them as odd, and they were already concerned about Kay joining the church, which according to Peter, operates "like a cult". 

"It works like this, if you're popular and good looking and you dress well, they put a spotlight on you. So when Kay and Ken started dating, the church validated the 'popular' relationship by appointing them leaders of a new small group."

This was the start of a shift in power balance that became progressively worse, and over time, Kay began to withdraw from family and friends – including her sister. 

"Kay's isolation included things like withdrawing from all social media, none of which she's accessed since she and Ken got married.

"She was spending time exclusively with people she'd met at the church and through Ken."

Recognising red flags.

For years, Peter and Jenny's suspicious were just that – suspicions. But in during Covid, Jenny couldn't take it anymore, and they decided to pay her a visit and brought some food.

"As we were driving down, Jenny attempted to call Kay but she didn't pick up. So she called Ken who answered immediately."

Ken said he was out but "Kay is getting changed". 

"How did Ken know what she was doing?" thought Peter.

When they knocked on the door, Kay opened it, but kept her mobile phone to her ear the entire time.

"Our kids were asleep in the car so we asked Kay to come and see them and collect the food, but she just shook her head," says Peter.

"Above her head there was a camera. Jenny was confused, but got the gift herself and brought it to Kay at the door. 

"But she's still holding her phone to her ear. Jenny asked who she was speaking to, and Kay said 'it's Ken'."

As they drove away, the penny dropped for the first time, that Ken was controlling Kay.

"We didn't have the language we have now, coercive control, abuse and so on.

"It seemed to us that, knowing we were coming to drop off a gift, Ken had called Kay and demanded to listen in to the conversation. And Kay couldn't approach the car because he'd told her not to come out of the house and he could watch her on the camera above her head."

Amid growing concerns, Jenny decided to test her theory, inviting her sister to a dinner to celebrate a family birthday. 

"The point was to see whether Kay would be permitted to come."

Kay contacted Jenny directly, asking if she and Ken could visit her in person to "discuss some things". 

When they arrived, Peter and Jenny's fears were confirmed, with Ken outright telling them they could only communicate or see Kay if he was present. 

"He said if Jenny still wanted to do dinner, she could do it so long as he was also invited. 

Calling it what it is - abuse. 

That was several years ago, and Peter believes Kay's pregnancy emboldened Ken to make his both rules explicit and public, knowing a baby would further anchor her.

Essentially, she was not permitted to see any members of her family, without him there. 

"The mask often slips once the abuser feels like he or she has total control. That was our experience. 

"It was a double-whammy; an abusive, controlling partner inside a church that operates like a cult.

"She doesn't have control of her phone, her email, her movements, her social life, her wardrobe, what she eats, where she goes. Nothing."

After doing their own research, Peter and Jenny were finally able to recognise what Kay was experiencing as domestic abuse. 

Wanting to help his sister-in-law, Peter called her church to speak to one of its leaders, a man who was once close with Ken. To his surprise, this man was aware of Ken's behaviour, as were many members of the church. 

"He said that Ken is dangerous, that Kay is not safe, and that we should try to intervene," says Peter. "He is a coward. He represents a corrupt and toxic institution."

"Severe risk of being murdered by her husband."

With Kay now so distant from the family, Peter and Jenny were desperate, and reached out to police for help. 

"I spoke to the head of one of the DV units in Sydney, and he said there were serious red flags in this relationship and that Kay is in 'mortal danger'," says Peter. 

"The indicators are that she's at severe risk of being murdered by her husband, and I wanted the police on the hook for a problem I seemed to be carrying around by myself."

So, Peter went to his local police station to make an official report. He wanted the abuse on the record, in case police were ever called to Kay's house for something more sinister. 

"The officer was initially dubious. She asked me why this wasn't just a family matter. When I told her about Kay being under constant surveillance, having her phone controlled, having her movements tracked and losing contact with us, she realised I was describing coercive control. She paid her a visit, but Kay chose not to make an official report.

"Jenny and I are despairing. If we ever see Kay again, I suspect it will be at her funeral. Even Hannah Clarke was able to visit her own parents without supervision. The abuse in this relationship is so extreme and so absolute that there is almost nothing we can do to help her."

In desperation Peter reached out to the church again, but this time, they not only denied any knowledge of abuse, but of ever speaking about it at all. 

"We have to educate people on the early signs of abuse."

Peter believes if he and his family understood the early signs of abuse, they might have been able to intervene before things escalated. 

"We absolutely have to educate people on the early signs of abuse. Isolation is a huge red flag, and losing control of your phone, email, time, activities, and wardrobe is catastrophic. 

"Abuse is rarely physical. I could write you 100 pages on all of the small stories regarding Ken's controlling and abusive behaviour that happened in plain sight – without us understanding it at the time."

Peter says public education should include better understanding of personality disorders, common among abusers. 

"We need to understand narcissism, and antisocial personality disorder (because) the pattern of behaviour amongst abusers is just so consistent – love-bombing, isolation, degrading, controlling. 

"More importantly, people with these personality disorders can't change. 

"I see a lot of press coverage about the need to educate men so that they change their behaviour. That might work for a small subsection of our community, but for people with NPD or ASPD the general consensus seems to be that there is minimal clinical possibility of improvement, meaning that victims and potential victims can only choose to avoid these people. 

"Don't live with a false hope that abusers will improve. In most instances, they can't, and they won't."

Lastly, Peter also believes there should be more focus on those who enable abuse, such as the church in Kay's case. 

"The public dialogue talks about victim-survivors, abusers, and the friends and family of victims. It very rarely seems to focus on the many people in the orbit of an abuser who enable abuse. 

"In our situation, Ken's family enables his abuse by accepting the idea that Kay can reasonably cut contact with her sister and her wider family. Some of their friends pretend that this is all just a big falling out, and they turn a blind eye to Ken's toxic behaviour.

"The church enabled his abuse by working hard to protect its own reputation rather than publicly intervene. 

"My view is that the enablers of abuse – the people who legitimise a relationship that they know to be abusive – are the biggest problem when it comes to domestic violence. They keep the victims trapped."

Of course, Peter and Jenny's ultimate goal is to see Kay return to her once happy self. 

"I am more or less certain it would require the end of the relationship. She has lost everything in this whirlpool of abuse."

*names have been changed.

If this has raised any issues for you, or if you just feel like you need to speak to someone, please call 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) — the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service.

Mamamia is a charity partner of RizeUp Australia, a Queensland-based organisation that helps women and families move on after the devastation of domestic violence. If you would like to support their mission to deliver life-changing and practical support to these families when they need it most, you can donate here.

Feature image: Getty.