Key Vulnerabilities That Can Be Exploited:

• Literal communication styles can be exploited by perpetrators who deliberately mislead, use sarcasm, or gaslight through ambiguous language
• Masking behaviours may hide signs of distress from support services, making it harder for professionals to recognise abuse
• Sensory sensitivities can be weaponised (e.g., deliberately triggering sensory overload through loud arguments, bright lights, strong smells, or chaotic environments)
• Reliance on routine and predictability can be disrupted as a form of control, creating constant anxiety and destabilisation
• Difficulty reading social cues and non-verbal communication may delay recognition of manipulative or abusive patterns
• Strong sense of justice and rule-following can be manipulated by perpetrators who create arbitrary “rules” or exploit moral rigidity
• Social isolation and limited support networks may already exist, making it easier for perpetrators to isolate survivors further
• Previous negative experiences with authority can create reluctance to seek help from police or social services
• Challenges with executive functioning can be exploited to create dependency (e.g., controlling finances, schedules, daily tasks)

Key Vulnerabilities That Can Be Exploited:

• Impulsivity can lead to rushed decisions about relationships, moving in together quickly, or making financial commitments without full consideration of red flags
• Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD) makes survivors particularly vulnerable to emotional manipulation, constant criticism, and fear of abandonment – perpetrators exploit this through cycles of love-bombing and withdrawal
• Executive functioning challenges can be exploited through financial control, isolation from support networks, or deliberate creation of chaos to increase dependency
• Time blindness and memory difficulties can be used to gaslight survivors (“that never happened,” “you always forget,” “you’re too disorganised to manage without me”)
• Emotional dysregulation may be blamed as the “real problem” by perpetrators, who claim the survivor’s ADHD symptoms are the cause of relationship difficulties
• Need for stimulation and novelty can be exploited through unpredictable behaviour that creates trauma bonding
• Difficulty with task initiation and follow-through can be weaponised to create a narrative of incompetence and dependency
• Hyperfocus on relationships can lead to ignoring red flags or warning signs from friends and family

• Difficulty articulating experiences coherently, particularly under stress or when experiencing trauma responses
• Need for processing time that standard police procedures and court timelines don’t accommodate
• Literal interpretation of questions may not capture the full context of coercive control
• Difficulty identifying and expressing emotions in ways professionals expect
• Past experiences of not being believed, leading to reluctance to report or engage with services
• Challenges with “credibility” – not appearing distressed “enough” or in the “right” way
• Difficulty maintaining eye contact or displaying expected body language during disclosure

• Sensory overwhelm in police stations, courts, or refuge settings (bright fluorescent lights, noise, crowds, unfamiliar environments)
• Inflexible appointment times and rigid procedures that don’t account for varying needs
• Lack of quiet, calm spaces for interviews and statements
• Overwhelming paperwork, complex legal language, and inaccessible information formats
• Unpredictable wait times creating anxiety and sensory fatigue
• Requirement to repeat traumatic details multiple times to different professionals

• Professionals lacking adequate training in neurodiversity and trauma-informed practice
• Risk assessment tools not designed for or validated with neurodivergent presentations
• Being perceived as not “credible” or “emotional enough” to be believed
• Fear of being judged as an “unfit parent” if children are involved, potentially losing custody
• Previous negative experiences with authority figures, medical professionals, or educational systems
• Assumptions that neurodivergent people lack capacity to consent or make decisions
• Intersection with other marginalised identities (race, class, sexuality) compounding discrimination
• Limited availability of specialist domestic abuse services with neurodiversity expertise

Required Actions by Police and Justice Agencies:

• Identify vulnerability and neurodivergent needs early in the process
• Make reasonable adjustments to communication methods, environment, and procedures
• Prevent discrimination and ensure equal access to justice
• Ensure victims receive appropriate safeguarding and support throughout the criminal justice process
• Provide intermediaries or other communication support where needed
• Conduct trauma-informed, neurodiversity-aware investigations
• Use accessible language in all communications
• Allow additional time for processing and responding to questions

• Take reports seriously regardless of how they are communicated (verbal, written, via advocate, etc.)
• Conduct thorough risk assessments using autism/ADHD-informed approaches that recognise unique vulnerability factors
• Provide protection measures such as Domestic Violence Protection Notices (DVPNs) or Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs)
• Communicate in ways that meet individual needs – written summaries, visual supports, longer processing time, quiet environments
• Offer quiet, low-stimulation interview spaces with controllable lighting and minimal background noise
• Allow you to bring a support person to interviews and appointments
• Provide information in accessible formats including easy-read, plain language, or visual formats

• Appoint Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) ideally with neurodiversity training and understanding
• Allow access to registered intermediaries for police interviews, witness statements, and court proceedings to support communication
• Provide advance information about what to expect at each stage, using clear timelines and visual schedules where helpful
• Make adjustments for sensory needs in court – screens to avoid seeing the perpetrator, regular breaks, appropriate lighting, access to quiet rooms
• Respect communication preferences and processing speeds – no rushing, questions in writing if preferred, time to think
• Use special measures during testimony such as video links, screens, or evidence given in private
• Avoid unnecessary repetition of traumatic details through better information sharing between agencies

• Extra time to give evidence in court with breaks as needed
• Questions provided in advance where appropriate (in accordance with court rules)
• Use of communication aids or visual supports during interviews and court
• Breaks during interviews or court proceedings to manage sensory overload or processing needs
• Support person present (not just for children – adults can have supporters too)
• Written summaries of verbal information provided during meetings or hearings
• Adaptations to questioning style – clear, literal, concrete questions without idioms or ambiguity
• Ground rules hearings before cross-examination to establish how questions will be asked