Five Patterns That Signal Lethal Risk in Intimate Partner Violence
Lethal risk is patterned, cumulative, and identifiable
We know what precedes intimate partner homicide.
We have known for years.
What we have not done is act on it.
The Ontario Domestic Violence Death Review Committee identifies 41 risk factors associated with intimate partner homicide. These are drawn from systematic reviews of real cases using records from police, courts, healthcare, and child protection systems.
Nearly 80 percent of cases reviewed in 2022 to 2023 involved seven or more of these factors. Many involved ten or more.
These are not abstract findings.
They are the signals that first responders, lawyers, mediators, judges, and social workers encounter every day.
If you work in these fields, you have already seen these patterns.
The problem is not that we lack information.
It is that we do not organize and understand it in a way that makes action inevitable.
A flat list of 41 factors is difficult to apply in real time.
But read carefully, and a structure emerges.
The five patterns below are my analytical grouping of the Committee’s factors. They are designed to make risk easier to recognize, interpret, and act on across systems.
The five patterns at a glance
Grievance
Coercive control
Separation
Lethality escalators
Entrapment and system failure
Risk does not appear all at once. It accumulates.
The Ontario Domestic Violence Death Review Committee operates under the authority of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario.
It reviews domestic violence deaths after criminal proceedings have concluded.
Its role is to identify recurring risk factors and missed opportunities for intervention using verified records across systems.
Because it works retrospectively and relies on documented evidence, its findings are methodologically conservative. The results are cautious, and they are important.
Canadian family law already recognizes patterned violence
Canadian law now recognizes that violence is often patterned.
The Divorce Act defines family violence to include patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour. Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act echoes that language, as do the provincial laws elsewhere in Canada.
International law requires action where risk is foreseeable.
Canada’s National Action Plan to End Gender Based Violence reflects this approach.
The indicators identified by the Committee are exactly the kind of signals these frameworks anticipate.
1. Grievance: when loss becomes blame
Violence often begins with meaning on the part of the abuser. The perpetrator reframes loss as injustice. Responsibility is assigned to the victim. This is what practitioners call “poor me syndrome.”
This is not frustration. It is entitlement combined with grievance.
Watch for:
pathological envy
blaming the victim
grievance narratives
separation with a new relationship for the victim
attitudes condoning violence
recent loss or humiliation
unemployment or financial stress
victim employed while perpetrator is not
2. Coercive control: the liberty crime
This is ongoing domination.
The late social work professor, Dr Evan Stark, described coercive control as a liberty crime because it strips autonomy over time.
It is continuous, not episodic.
Watch for:
history of domestic violence
control of daily activities
isolation
obsessive behaviour
stalking
perpetrator access
non compliance with court orders
minimization or denial
Control is not an incident. It is a system.
3. Separation: the point of maximum danger
Most intimate partner homicides occur during or shortly after separation.
This is one of the most consistent findings in the research.
When a victim leaves, the perpetrator is losing control. That loss often triggers escalation.
Fear at this stage is not overreaction. It is informed by lived experience.
Watch for:
actual or pending separation
belief the victim is leaving permanently
attempts to disengage
custody or access disputes
prior police involvement
victim fear of the perpetrator
help seeking blocked or punished
Separation increases risk. It does not reduce it.
4. Lethality: when risk becomes imminent
Some indicators signal immediate danger.
Threats are often minimized. They should not be.
In this context, threats communicate intent.
Strangulation and access to weapons significantly increase the likelihood of fatal violence.
Watch for:
threats to kill
suicide threats or attempts
history of strangulation
firearms access
escalation of violence
violence outside the family
past criminal behaviour
threats to harm children
Threats are behaviour, not just words.
5. Entrapment and system failure
Risk persists when victims cannot safely leave, and systems do not respond effectively.
Vulnerability shapes what is possible.
Missed intervention opportunities are part of the causal chain.
Watch for:
victim vulnerability
pregnancy or recent childbirth
victim depression
perpetrator depression
substance use or abuse
mental health issues
economic dependence
cultural or immigration stressors
multiple risk factors present
system failures
When systems fail, risk is not neutral. It accumulates.
For practitioners
If you see factors across multiple categories, risk is escalating.
If separation is present, risk is elevated.
If threats, strangulation, or weapons are present, risk may be imminent.
What this shows
These factors describe a trajectory.
Grievance leads to control.
Control escalates at separation.
Separation increases risk.
Lethality indicators signal imminent harm.
Entrapment prevents intervention.
This is not random.
It is patterned, cumulative, and visible.
Conclusion
Intimate partner homicide is not a failure of prediction.
It is a failure of response.
The Full List of 41 Risk Factors
Ontario Domestic Violence Death Review Committee
These factors rarely appear alone. When multiple are present, risk increases significantly.
Pathological envy
Blaming the victim
Grievance narratives
Separation with a new relationship
Attitudes condoning violence
Recent loss or humiliation
Unemployment or financial stress
Victim employed while perpetrator is not
History of domestic violence*
Control of daily activities
Isolation
Obsessive behaviour
Stalking*
Perpetrator access*
Court order non compliance*
Minimization or denial
Actual or pending separation*
Belief the victim is leaving permanently*
Attempts to disengage
Custody or access disputes*
Prior police involvement
Victim fear of the perpetrator*
Help seeking blocked or punished*
Threats to kill*
Suicide threats or attempts*
History of strangulation*
Firearms access*
Escalation of violence*
Violence outside the family
Past criminal behaviour
Threats to harm children*
Victim vulnerability
Pregnancy or recent childbirth
Victim depression
Perpetrator depression
Substance use or abuse*
Mental health issues
Economic dependence*
Cultural or immigration stressors
Multiple risk factors present*
System failures*
*highest predictive factors
"Threats are behaviour, not just words."
This one line blew my mind! So true.