For women seeking to extricate themes from the web of entrapment together with the multiple threads that make up the Coercive control repertoire of their abusive partners, it is often willingness to engage with legal systems. Yet, the legal systems they contain, family, child welfare, immigration among themes are frequently unwelcoming (if not hostile), controlling, demeaning, fragmented and contradictory. While that has been a recent explosion of interest in ‘access to justice,’ attention has been paid to how we might conceptual access to justice in a manner that Speaks meaningfully to the circumstances of women who experience abuse in their intimate ships. For such women, access to justice is curtailed not only by lack of representation, delays, costs, and procedural complexities-the obstacles involved with access to justice gaps but by three interrelated phenomena: the enduring hold of an incident based understanding of domestic violence; the failure of legal actors to curb their strategic use of legal systems to further their power; and the host of complications-conflicting expectations, inconstituent orders, repeated proceedings, sweeping surveillance – that arises when women are Compelled to navigate multiple intersecting legal systems. What is required, I argue, is a conceptualisation of access to justice that places women’s safety and well-being at its core. In most cases, women who want to get out of domestic violence and escape the control of their abusive spouses have no choice but to turn to justice systems. However, those available to them, whether in criminal or family matters, immigration or child protection, are often not welcoming (if not hostile), in addition to being controlling, blurring, fragmented and contradictory. Despite the very high interest in access to justice for some time, little attention has been paid to how to conceptualise this access in order to really help women to cope with intimate partner violence. For these women, access to justice is hampered not only by inadequate representation services, procedural delays, costs and complexities, which are usually associated with loopholes in access to justice, but also by three interrelated phenomena: a tenacious perception of domestic violence focused on the incident; the inability of legal practitioners to curb men who astuciously use justice systems to increase their domination and the myriad of complications – conflicting expectations, incompatible orders, repetitive procedures, invasive surveillance – that arise when women have to navigate through the granders of several intertwining justice systems. In my view, it is imperative to achieve a conceptualisation of access to justice that focuses first and foremost on the safety and well-being of women.