Coercive Control Laws: States That Recognize Psychological Abuse as Domestic Violence

Most domestic violence statutes were built around physical injury. Courts required something visible — a bruise, a police report, a hospital record. That framework did not account for patterns of isolation, financial control, surveillance, and psychological domination that cause serious harm without leaving a mark. Courts did not recognize that conduct as domestic violence. Petitioners had no legal remedy until physical injury occurred.

Coercive control is the statutory term for that category of conduct. As part of the legal definition of domestic violence, seven U.S. states have now enacted statutes explicitly recognizing it — allowing petitioners to seek protective orders or pursue custody arguments based on psychological and behavioral abuse alone, without proving physical violence. The gap between those seven states and the remaining forty-three is significant, and the legal mechanisms differ substantially even among states that have acted.

The sections below explain what coercive control means under state law, which states have codified it, how each state’s approach differs, and what the law can and cannot do based on a coercive control claim.

What Is Coercive Control Under the Law

Coercive control is a statutory ongoing conduct requirement — a pattern of behavior used to dominate, isolate, or restrict an intimate partner’s freedom — without necessarily inflicting physical injury. The term was introduced to U.S. law gradually, following scholarly work documenting how controlling behavior — not just physical violence — characterizes the most dangerous domestic abuse situations and the ones most likely to escalate to homicide.

Every state statute that recognizes coercive control imposes the same threshold: ongoing conduct, not a single act. Courts look for behavior that, taken as a whole, demonstrates a systematic effort to interfere with the other party’s free will and personal liberty.

The specific behaviors that qualify vary by statute, but the common categories across all seven states include: isolating the other party from friends, family, or sources of support; controlling, monitoring, or restricting access to finances, communications, or movement; using threats — including threats based on immigration status — to compel conduct; and depriving the other party of basic necessities. Washington’s statute goes further, explicitly including vexatious or abusive litigation — using court proceedings themselves as a tool of coercive control.

That last point matters. Many petitioners report that their abuser continued to dominate them through the legal system after separation. Washington is currently the only state whose coercive control statute expressly addresses that tactic.

Which States Have Coercive Control Laws

The legislative trend began in 2020 and accelerated through 2024. The table below shows where each state’s law applies and the statutory basis.

The key distinction in the table is whether coercive control creates a ground for a protective order (broadest legal effect), functions as a factor in custody proceedings (narrower), or operates as a factor at the final protective order hearing stage (intermediate).

The breadth of legal effect matters. California, Connecticut, Washington, and Massachusetts all allow a petitioner to seek a protective order based on coercive control alone — without showing a physical act. New Jersey’s approach is narrower: coercive control is a factor the court weighs at the final hearing but does not independently qualify a petitioner for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Colorado’s law is narrower still, applying only in custody proceedings.

How Do States Define Coercive Control in Law?

The statutory language is close but not identical across states. The differences matter in court — particularly on what specific conduct qualifies and whether a single state’s law reaches dating partners, immigration-based threats, or litigation abuse.

California defines coercive control through California Family Code §6320 as conduct that “in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty,” embedded within the “disturbing the peace of the other party” prong of the restraining order statute. SB 1141 (2020) established the initial framework; SB 374 (2021) added reproductive coercion as a fifth enumerated example — the only state in this group with that specific provision. A finding of coercive control in California also creates a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to the perpetrator is detrimental to the child.

Washington enacted the broadest statutory enumeration under RCW 7.105.010(4), defining coercive control as a pattern that “in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty” and listing specific examples including using technology to harass or surveil, immigration-based threats, engaging in psychological aggression such as humiliation or degradation, and — distinctly — filing vexatious court proceedings to exhaust or control the other party.

Connecticut’s Jennifer’s Law was named after Jennifer Dulos, who disappeared and was killed in 2019 after filing for divorce from a husband who had documented patterns of financial and psychological control. The law created Connecticut’s first unified statutory definition of domestic violence for all family relations matters, with coercive control as category four under CGS §46b-1(b)(4): a statutory required course of conduct that “in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.” Connecticut also added a procedural protection directly tied to coercive control safety concerns — protected persons may give testimony and appear in family court proceedings remotely.

Hawaii’s approach is the most layered. Hawaii Revised Statutes §586-1 includes coercive control in the definition of domestic abuse for civil protective order purposes, with a detailed list of qualifying behaviors that includes name-calling, degradation, threats to release private information, forcing participation in criminal activity, and monitoring. Separately, HRS §709-906(6) criminalizes the exercise of coercive control over a family or household member as a petty misdemeanor under a five-year pilot program established in 2021.

Massachusetts became the seventh state to act when Governor Healey signed H.4744 in 2024. The law added coercive control as a fourth category of “abuse” under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A §1, effective September 18, 2024. The ongoing conduct threshold mirrors the other states — a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty — and explicitly includes controlling monitoring “through technological means.” The statute also added a new petition form field requiring courts to record whether the petitioner has alleged coercive control.

Here’s a concrete illustration of how the statutory variation plays out. A petitioner in Massachusetts whose abuser systematically monitored her phone, controlled access to bank accounts, and isolated her from her family could file for a 209A order based solely on those facts — no physical violence required — under the 2024 amendment. The same petitioner in Illinois, a state that has not yet enacted a coercive control statute, would likely not qualify for an order of protection on those facts alone under 750 ILCS 60/103, which does not include coercive control in its definition of abuse.

The procedural difference between California and New Jersey shows a different dimension. Take a petitioner in New Jersey who has documented two years of financial restriction and surveillance by a former partner but no physical contact. Under NJSA 2C:25-29(a)(7), coercive control is a factor the court weighs at the final protective order hearing — but it does not independently qualify the petitioner for a temporary restraining order at the initial filing stage. That petitioner would need to establish a qualifying predicate act first. The same petitioner filing in California could get an ex parte temporary DVRO based on the coercive control pattern alone, the same day she files, before any hearing is scheduled.

What Coercive Control Means for Protective Orders

In states where coercive control is a recognized ground for a protective order, the legal door opens before any physical contact occurs. A petitioner alleging a documented pattern of psychological control, financial restriction, or isolation can file a petition without waiting for violence.

Courts still require evidence. A petition based on coercive control will include a sworn affidavit describing the conduct over time — not a single incident. Courts evaluate the totality of circumstances against the statutory standard.

Evidence courts may consider in coercive control cases includes electronic communications showing controlling instructions or monitoring, financial records documenting restriction of access to funds, testimony from third parties who witnessed isolation tactics, and records of tracking software or surveillance. Courts focus on the pattern, not any individual act. A single controlling text message is not coercive control. A documented history of monitoring every movement, restricting finances, and cutting the other party off from family — that is what these statutes are written to capture.

A common misconception is that coercive control statutes turn any form of emotional or controlling behavior into grounds for a protective order. That is not accurate. Every state statute requires ongoing conduct that “unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.” Normal relationship friction — disagreements over finances, household schedules — does not meet that statutory threshold. Courts retain discretion to evaluate whether the allegations actually rise to the level of coercive control as codified, and petitions that describe ordinary conflict rather than systematic domination will not succeed.

What Coercive Control Means for Custody

A finding of coercive control triggers direct statutory custody consequences in at least three states, making it one of the most significant legal effects of these laws beyond the protective order context itself.

California’s SB 1141 amended the Family Code to establish a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to a party who engaged in coercive control is detrimental to the best interests of the child. This puts coercive control on the same legal footing as physical domestic violence in California custody proceedings.

Colorado’s HB24-1350, enacted in 2024, defined coercive control in CRS §14-10-124 for parental responsibility proceedings, requiring courts and evaluators to specifically assess evidence of coercive control when determining custody arrangements. Colorado did not add coercive control as a protective order ground — its current law operates exclusively in the custody context.

In the other states analyzed, coercive control findings are relevant evidence in custody proceedings but do not automatically trigger a presumption. Courts weigh them as part of the broader best-interests analysis.

Protective orders and custody proceedings are separate processes, and a protective order issued in any of these states can include temporary custody provisions — but those provisions do not replace a formal custody order and do not resolve the long-term custody question.

Is Coercive Control a Crime

Hawaii is the only U.S. state that has criminalized coercive control as a distinct offense. Under HRS §709-906(6), exercising coercive control over a family or household member is a petty misdemeanor, carrying up to 30 days imprisonment and a $1,000 fine under HRS §§706-640 and 706-663. The Hawaii legislature established this provision explicitly as a pilot program to evaluate how criminalization works in practice before making the provision permanent.

In every other state — including the six that have enacted civil coercive control provisions — the conduct itself is not a crime. Coercive control becomes relevant to criminal law in those states only when an abuser violates a protective order that was issued on coercive control grounds. The violation of the order is the criminal offense; the coercive control is the predicate that justified the order.

This distinction is widely misunderstood. People in states with coercive control statutes often believe that calling police to report financial control or isolation will result in an arrest. It will not — unless a protective order is already in place and the respondent is violating its terms.

What Happens If a Coercive Control Order Is Violated

A protective order issued on coercive control grounds carries the same legal weight and enforcement consequences as any other protective order — and violating a protective order is a criminal offense.

In California, violation of a DVRO is a misdemeanor under California Penal Code §273.6, carrying up to one year in county jail and fines up to $1,000. Repeat violations or violations involving physical injury escalate to felony charges. In Connecticut, violation of a restraining or protective order is a class D felony under CGS §53a-223, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Massachusetts sets the penalty for a first 209A violation at up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and fines up to $5,000.

The federal firearm prohibition also applies. Under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), any person subject to a qualifying protective order — including orders issued on coercive control grounds — is federally prohibited from possessing firearms. This applies in every state the moment a qualifying order is issued, regardless of whether the state has its own separate firearm surrender requirement.

And under 18 U.S.C. §2265, every state must enforce a valid protective order from any other state. A protective order issued on coercive control grounds in California is enforceable in Texas. The respondent cannot cross state lines and treat the order as void.

Here is how enforcement works in practice. Say a court in Washington issues a domestic violence protection order under RCW 7.105.010 based on a documented pattern of coercive control — including the respondent tracking the petitioner’s location through shared devices and monitoring all her communications. The respondent then installs new tracking software on her phone three weeks later. That action is a criminal violation of the protection order — not just a civil matter — and under Washington’s mandatory arrest framework, law enforcement has authority to arrest on probable cause without waiting for a warrant. The coercive control conduct that justified the order is now the factual basis for a criminal arrest.

States Without Coercive Control Laws: What Courts Can Still Consider

States without a coercive control statute cannot issue a protective order based on psychological control or financial restriction alone — but several existing categories in most state DV codes cover overlapping conduct under different legal labels.

Illinois, for example, includes “interference with personal liberty” and “harassment” in the definition of abuse under 750 ILCS 60/103. Harassment is defined as conduct that “causes emotional distress” and includes repeated following, surveillance, and threatening conduct. Petitioners in states without coercive control statutes may still qualify for protective orders if the conduct alleged meets the definition of harassment, stalking, or interference with personal liberty under that state’s law.

The limitation is precision. A petitioner whose situation is defined primarily by financial control, monitoring, or isolation — without threatening or harassing conduct — may find that the existing statutory categories do not capture what has been happening. That is the gap coercive control statutes were designed to fill.

States currently considering coercive control legislation include New York, where a bill to classify coercive control as a felony has been proposed but not yet enacted, and several others where advocacy coalitions are actively pushing for civil law amendments modeled on the Massachusetts or Connecticut approach.

FAQ

What is coercive control under the law?

Coercive control is defined in state statutes as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with another person’s free will and personal liberty — including isolation, financial control, surveillance, and intimidation — without requiring physical violence. Every state that has enacted a coercive control statute requires a pattern, not a single act.

Can I get a restraining order for coercive control without physical violence?

In California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Washington, and Massachusetts, a petitioner can seek a civil protective order based solely on coercive control — no physical violence is required. New Jersey allows coercive control as a factor at the final hearing stage but not as a standalone TRO ground. In states without coercive control statutes, petitioners generally cannot qualify for a protective order based solely on psychological or financial abuse absent qualifying threats or harassment. Under 18 U.S.C. §2265, an order issued in one of those states must be enforced nationally.

Is coercive control a crime in the United States?

Only in Hawaii. Under HRS §709-906(6), exercising coercive control is a petty misdemeanor under an active pilot program. In every other state, coercive control is addressed through civil protective orders and custody proceedings — not criminal prosecution. Criminal charges arise only when a respondent violates a protective order that was issued on coercive control grounds.

Does coercive control affect child custody?

Yes, in several states. California’s Family Code §3044 establishes a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to a party who engaged in coercive control is detrimental to the child. Colorado’s HB24-1350 requires courts and evaluators to specifically assess coercive control evidence in parental responsibility proceedings. In other states, coercive control findings are relevant to the best-interests analysis but do not carry an automatic presumption.

What counts as evidence of coercive control in court?

Courts may consider text messages and electronic communications showing controlling instructions or monitoring, financial records documenting restriction of access to funds, testimony from third parties who observed isolation tactics, screenshots of tracking or surveillance software, and the petitioner’s sworn description of the pattern of conduct. Evidence must demonstrate a pattern — courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances, not individual incidents in isolation.

Can emotional abuse alone qualify for a protective order?

In states with coercive control statutes, psychological and behavioral abuse that meets the “pattern of behavior” standard can qualify for a protective order without physical violence. Outside those states, courts generally require allegations of physical harm, imminent physical threat, harassment, or stalking as defined by that state’s statute. Generic emotional distress or relationship conflict does not qualify in any state.

What states have Jennifer’s Law or coercive control statutes?

Connecticut’s Jennifer’s Law (PA 21-78, 2021) was among the first — and most recognized by name — of the coercive control statutes. The full list of states with enacted coercive control provisions as of 2024 is California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, and Colorado (custody context only). Illinois introduced bills in 2022 and 2024 to add coercive control to its domestic violence statute but neither has been enacted.

Tags: Coercive Control LawsDomestic Violence LawProtective OrdersPsychological Abuse