Grammy-winning songwriter Olivia Nervo thought she was building a stable, exclusive partnership when she decided to have a child with her partner. Unaware of reproductive coercion at the time, her situation unraveled at six months pregnant upon learning he was involved with another woman who was also expecting and already shared a child with him. This revelation introduced her to reproductive coercion, a type of manipulative behavior where someone disrupts another’s control over their reproductive choices.
Labour MP Natalie Fleet highlighted Nervo’s experience in a recent parliamentary discussion, stressing its public significance. Although the court did not rule on reproductive coercion in Nervo’s case, Fleet noted that the legal framework in England and Wales still grapples with acknowledging it fully.
Nervo, part of the DJ and songwriting pair with her twin sister Miriam, endured a prolonged and costly legal fight in London against her ex-partner, affluent New Zealand entrepreneur Matthew Pringle, known for his ventures in manuka honey. She argued: ‘Engaging in sexual activity without revealing an STD can lead to assault charges, and secretly removing a condom is classified as rape. Yet, tricking someone into pregnancy or intercourse often goes unaddressed legally. I struggle to move past this, and I believe reproductive coercion should be addressed seriously in family courts, ideally as its own crime, though I know that’s ambitious.’
A 2022 survey of 1,000 women aged 18-44 revealed that half had faced some form of reproductive coercion, such as pressure regarding pregnancy, abortion, intercourse, or birth control. While recognized as coercive control under England’s Serious Crime Act, experts like UCL professor Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson point out that coercive control itself has been slow to gain traction, and without separate status, reproductive coercion is often ignored in criminal proceedings. She mentioned many women reach out to her, sharing unreported experiences due to shame or uncertainty about the wrongdoing.
Nervo and Pringle connected in 2016 and started family planning in 2018. ‘We chose a name for our baby early and planned our future home,’ Nervo recalled. In February 2019, while six months along, she met a woman at Pringle’s Auckland workplace who revealed he was at the hospital for the birth of a child with her sister.
After their daughter’s birth, Pringle linked financial aid to secrecy. Nervo sought to share her story publicly, but in 2020, he claimed defamation and privacy violations for himself and their child. A recent appeals court decision noted Pringle’s offer of a £20 million trust for the daughter and a £3 million home, but talks broke down over Nervo’s social media activity and a planned interview.
In 2022, over three years post-birth and amid fears of another interview, Pringle sought a parental responsibility order. The family court offered Nervo some validation. High Court judge Nicholas Allen KC ruled that Pringle’s timing suggested motives to shield his privacy and reputation via family court anonymity rules, alongside building a bond with his daughter. Pringle acknowledged emotional domestic abuse, including deceit prior to the birth. The judge described his actions as reprehensible, fitting under domestic abuse, and likely controlling, as the deception influenced Nervo’s decisions.
