The wording suggests the applicability of the term was arrived at via a court ruling, which it was.

*family court ruling

That is a very different thing, especially in the US.

"Concept creep" is interesting — is there an old and new concept of domestic violence?

This is probably a heavy-handed way to enter the conversation, but I was rather surprised when I found out how many countries until only recently updated laws on DV and rape to apply to married couples in the same way as unmarried couples. Society seems to have felt decidedly different levels of outrage about doing bad things to unmarried persons (usually women) vs. married ones, and persons in marriage could get away with doing some awful things to their partners.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country

This is the extreme view, there's of course many other forms of DV and laws across the spectrum are no less fascinating. Note also that there's a difference between legal frameworks and enforcement - I understand, for example, that Japan recently updated the laws to criminalize spousal rape, but it doesn't mean a court will rule on it.

So this is one way in which the definition of DV has broadened. To me it doesn't meet the implied negative connotations of "creep", however.

The parent is referring to a part of the broader notion that some people feel that some other people have over-extended the use of accusatory terms. It's a segment of the SJW/wokeness/cancel-culture/left-vs-right thing. E.g. the word "violence" was used by somebody (I forget the case, but it was not a legal usage of the term) to refer to something non-physical. "Words can be violence", or something like that. I think "poverty is a form of violence" is also something I've heard. I've seen this criticism made for over-usage of the term "hate speech" too, but only in a sarcastic, theoretical way. I've haven't seen the actual instances of the term's misuse. Similarly, I haven't seen cases where the specific term "domestic violence" was over-extended in any popular or legal context (though they may exist).

The old concept was 'it doesn't exist, and if it does it wasn't the husband's fault'

not quite sure how you are arriving at that conclusion?

It is an interpretation, not a conclusion, based on the premise that one would have known before the ruling whether or not the allegations described an instance of DV, if the term had been interpreted according to its traditional meaning.

>one would have known before the ruling whether or not the allegations described an instance of DV

I'm not defending/attacking any person here, since I haven't read further details, but if one goes to court to have something "obvious" decided upon, and then one writes for strangers about it, many (I think even most) people would absolutely use the same wording she used. "The judge confirmed X." I think you're looking too hard for a case that may support some conception you have, instead of accepting that that sentence doesn't have anything insidious in it. Whatever the situation is in reality is coincidental to that sentence.

That would be another possible interpretation of the phrase, but I think it is the less plausible one due to other contextual cues in the above text. In fact, the following quote appears on p. 128 of the same thread, posted by the same account:

>with me, Rich did not get physical.

Which, in my view, definitively settles the issue in the favor of my previous comments. The imputed "suggestion" was, in fact, the case. I also don't see why a bad-faith "flag" could be an appropriate response to the content of that post, which merely makes a reasonable point.

Did you read more than the 1st sentence?

"There was one instance where he rushed me and I put my arms out to stop him, another where he pinned me down on the bed, but from what I can recall right now the rest was emotional, financial, verbal and lots of intimidation like punching holes in the wall, throwing and breaking things, screaming in my face."

Rushing, pinning, punching, and throwing are physical and violent. And I don't know how you ruled out threats.

So you don't think psychological abuse is domestic violence?

Do not have kids, please.

>So you don't think psychological abuse is domestic violence?

It doesn't follow that making a distinction between the two concepts entails approval of instances of either one.

Psychological abuse is plainly a subset of domestic violence.