Understanding Coercive Control in Massachusetts Family Law
The landscape of domestic violence law in Massachusetts underwent a significant transformation on September 18, 2024, when new legislation expanded the legal definition of abuse to include coercive control. This groundbreaking change represents a fundamental shift in how the Commonwealth addresses domestic violence, moving beyond traditional concepts of physical harm to encompass the psychological and emotional tactics that abusers use to maintain power and control over their victims. Understanding this new legal framework is essential for anyone navigating family law matters involving domestic violence.
The Evolution of Abuse Definitions in Massachusetts
Prior to the enactment of the coercive control legislation, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A defined abuse in relatively narrow terms. The previous definition encompassed only three specific categories of conduct: attempting to cause or causing physical harm, placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm, and causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat, or duress. This limited definition left many victims of domestic violence without legal recourse when their abusers employed psychological manipulation, financial control, or other non-physical tactics to maintain dominance in the relationship.
The restrictive nature of the previous definition meant that controlling behavior, psychological abuse, and financial abuse typically could not form the grounds for obtaining a restraining order in Massachusetts courts. This gap in legal protection failed to recognize the reality that domestic violence often involves a complex pattern of behaviors designed to establish and maintain control over victims, many of which do not involve physical violence or direct threats of physical harm.
The new coercive control law addresses these limitations by recognizing that abuse can take many forms beyond physical violence. This expansion acknowledges the sophisticated understanding of domestic violence dynamics that has developed through decades of research and advocacy, bringing Massachusetts law into alignment with the lived experiences of domestic violence survivors.
Defining Coercive Control Under Massachusetts Law
The Massachusetts definition of coercive control is comprehensive and multifaceted, encompassing both patterns of behavior and specific single acts that demonstrate an intent to control, intimidate, or coerce compliance from family or household members. The law recognizes coercive control as a pattern of behavior intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce, or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes that person to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy.
This broad definition includes numerous specific behaviors that courts can now consider as evidence of coercive control. These behaviors include isolating the family or household member from friends, relatives, or other sources of support, depriving them of basic needs, and controlling, regulating, or monitoring their activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources, or access to services, including through technological means.
The law also recognizes compelling a family or household member to abstain from or engage in specific behaviors or activities, including engaging in criminal activity, as forms of coercive control. Additionally, threatening to harm a child or relative of the family or household member, threatening to commit cruelty or abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member, and intentionally damaging property belonging to the family or household member all constitute coercive control under the new definition.
Single Acts Versus Patterns of Behavior
The coercive control law distinguishes between patterns of behavior and single acts that can constitute abuse. While most coercive control involves ongoing patterns of controlling behavior, the law recognizes that certain single acts can be so significant that they constitute coercive control even without a demonstrated pattern. These single acts include harming or attempting to harm a child or relative of the family or household member, committing or attempting to commit abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member, and publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of the family or household member.
This distinction is important because it recognizes that some acts of coercive control are so inherently threatening and controlling that they need not be repeated to establish the requisite fear or reduced sense of autonomy. The threat implicit in harming a child or beloved pet, for example, can have lasting effects that extend far beyond the single incident, creating ongoing fear and compliance even without additional acts of abuse.
The law also includes using repeated court actions found by a court not to be warranted by existing law or good faith argument as a form of coercive control. This provision recognizes that the legal system itself can be weaponized by abusers to continue their pattern of control and harassment, turning what should be a source of protection into another tool of abuse.
Technological Aspects of Coercive Control
The modern definition of coercive control explicitly recognizes the role that technology plays in contemporary domestic violence. The law specifically mentions controlling, regulating, or monitoring activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources, or access to services through technological means as forms of coercive control. This recognition reflects the reality that abusers increasingly use technology to maintain surveillance and control over their victims.
Technological coercive control can take many forms, from monitoring location through shared phone applications to controlling access to financial accounts through digital banking systems. The law’s inclusion of technological means acknowledges that modern abusers have sophisticated tools at their disposal that can be used to maintain control even when they are not physically present with their victims.
The threat to publish sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit images, represents another technological aspect of coercive control that the law specifically addresses. This provision recognizes the particular vulnerability that victims face in the digital age, where private information and images can be weaponized to maintain control through threats of public humiliation or professional consequences.
Economic and Financial Control
The new coercive control law explicitly recognizes economic and financial control as forms of abuse, addressing a significant gap in the previous legal framework. Economic abuse can include withholding or denying access to money or other basic resources, sabotaging employment opportunities, controlling access to financial accounts, and manipulating credit or other financial instruments to maintain control over victims.
Financial control often serves as one of the most effective tools for maintaining long-term control over victims because it creates practical barriers to leaving abusive relationships. When abusers control access to financial resources, victims may find themselves unable to secure independent housing, transportation, or other necessities required to establish safety and independence.
The law’s recognition of economic control as coercive control provides victims with legal recourse when abusers use financial manipulation to maintain dominance in relationships. This recognition is particularly important because economic abuse often continues or even escalates after separation, as abusers attempt to use financial pressure to force victims to return to the relationship or to punish them for leaving.
Isolation and Social Control
Isolation represents another key component of coercive control that the new law specifically addresses. The definition includes isolating family or household members from friends, relatives, or other sources of support as a form of coercive control. This recognition acknowledges that abusers systematically work to cut their victims off from potential sources of help, support, and alternative perspectives that might challenge the abuser’s control.
Social isolation can take many forms, from forbidding contact with specific individuals to creating situations where maintaining relationships becomes practically impossible. Abusers may monitor communications, create conflicts with family and friends, or use emotional manipulation to convince victims that their support systems are unreliable or harmful.
The law’s recognition of isolation as coercive control is significant because it acknowledges that cutting victims off from support systems is not merely a byproduct of other abusive behaviors but is itself a deliberate and harmful tactic designed to increase victim vulnerability and dependence on the abuser.
Threats Against Third Parties
The coercive control law recognizes that abusers often maintain control by threatening harm to third parties who are important to their victims. Specifically, the law includes threatening to harm a child or relative of the family or household member and threatening to commit cruelty or abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member as forms of coercive control.
These provisions acknowledge that abusers understand their victims’ vulnerabilities and deliberately exploit emotional connections to maintain control. The threat to harm a child, for example, can be extraordinarily effective in compelling compliance because it leverages the victim’s protective instincts and creates fear that extends beyond personal safety to encompass the safety of loved ones.
Similarly, threats against pets or other animals connected to the victim recognize that many people have strong emotional bonds with animals and that abusers often exploit these relationships to maintain control. Research has shown that concern for pet safety is a significant factor that prevents some victims from leaving abusive relationships, making legal recognition of these threats an important component of comprehensive domestic violence law.
Legal Standards and Proof Requirements
The coercive control law establishes specific legal standards that must be met for behavior to constitute coercive control under Massachusetts law. The behavior must cause the family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy. This standard requires both subjective fear or reduced autonomy on the part of the victim and an objective assessment that such fear or reduced autonomy is reasonable under the circumstances.
The reasonableness standard is significant because it prevents the law from being applied to ordinary relationship conflicts or disagreements that do not rise to the level of abuse. Courts must consider whether a reasonable person in the victim’s position would experience fear or reduced autonomy as a result of the defendant’s behavior, taking into account the specific context and history of the relationship.
The requirement that victims experience either fear of physical harm or reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy provides two alternative pathways for establishing coercive control. This dual standard recognizes that coercive control can manifest in different ways and that victims may experience the effects of controlling behavior differently depending on their individual circumstances and the specific tactics employed by their abusers.
Anticipated Legal Challenges and Implementation Issues
The broad and comprehensive nature of the coercive control definition is likely to generate significant litigation as courts work to establish the boundaries of the new law. Legal practitioners and judges must grapple with questions about what constitutes a sufficient reduction in autonomy to warrant legal intervention and how to distinguish between ordinary relationship conflicts and abusive coercive control.
One significant challenge involves determining what level of behavior rises to that which would cause a reasonable person to have a reduced sense of autonomy. For example, courts will need to distinguish between financial control that constitutes coercive control and ordinary marital disputes about finances. Similarly, the use of location-sharing technology between spouses may be consensual in some relationships but coercive in others, requiring courts to examine the specific context and dynamics of each case.
The law’s broad definition may also create opportunities for manipulation, as some individuals might attempt to use coercive control allegations strategically in divorce or custody proceedings. Courts will need to develop expertise in recognizing genuine patterns of coercive control while avoiding the inappropriate expansion of the law to cover ordinary relationship difficulties or strategic litigation tactics.
Impact on Restraining Order Proceedings
The inclusion of coercive control in the definition of abuse significantly expands the circumstances under which individuals can obtain restraining orders in Massachusetts. Victims who previously could not meet the narrow requirements for physical abuse or threats of physical harm may now be able to obtain legal protection based on patterns of controlling behavior that create fear or reduce their sense of autonomy.
This expansion is particularly significant for victims whose abusers primarily use psychological, emotional, or economic tactics to maintain control. These victims may have experienced significant harm and fear without being able to access legal protection under the previous definition of abuse. The new law provides these victims with access to the same legal remedies available to victims of physical abuse.
However, the expansion also creates new challenges for courts in evaluating restraining order applications. Judges must now assess complex patterns of behavior and their psychological effects on victims, requiring a more nuanced understanding of domestic violence dynamics than was necessary under the previous law’s focus on physical harm and direct threats.
Relationship to Other Areas of Family Law
The recognition of coercive control as abuse has implications that extend beyond restraining order proceedings to other areas of family law. In custody and visitation cases, evidence of coercive control may be relevant to determinations about parental fitness and the best interests of children. The law’s recognition that domestic violence includes sophisticated patterns of control and manipulation may influence how courts approach custody decisions in cases involving domestic violence.
The coercive control law may also impact divorce proceedings, particularly in cases involving property division and support determinations. Evidence of economic coercive control, for example, may be relevant to understanding the true financial dynamics of a marriage and the need for protective measures to prevent continued financial abuse after divorce.
Additionally, the law’s recognition of coercive control may influence how courts approach other family law matters, such as modifications of existing orders or enforcement proceedings. The understanding that domestic violence can continue through legal proceedings themselves may lead to enhanced protections and procedures designed to prevent the misuse of the court system as a tool of continued abuse.
Training and Education Implications
The implementation of the coercive control law requires significant training and education for legal professionals, court personnel, and other stakeholders in the family law system. Judges, attorneys, court staff, and advocates must develop expertise in recognizing patterns of coercive control and understanding their effects on victims and families.
This training must go beyond simply learning the new legal definition to encompass a deeper understanding of the dynamics of coercive control and how these dynamics manifest in different types of relationships and circumstances. Legal professionals must learn to identify subtle forms of control and manipulation that may not be immediately apparent but that can have profound effects on victims’ safety and autonomy.
The education process must also address the potential for misuse of the coercive control law and provide guidance on how to distinguish between genuine patterns of abuse and ordinary relationship conflicts or strategic litigation tactics. This distinction is crucial for ensuring that the law serves its intended purpose of protecting victims while not being misused to gain advantage in family law proceedings.
Conclusion
The inclusion of coercive control in Massachusetts’ definition of abuse represents a significant advancement in the legal recognition of domestic violence dynamics. This change acknowledges that abuse encompasses far more than physical violence and provides legal protection for victims who experience sophisticated patterns of control and manipulation designed to undermine their autonomy and safety.
The new law’s comprehensive definition of coercive control addresses many of the gaps in the previous legal framework, providing protection for victims of economic abuse, technological surveillance, social isolation, and psychological manipulation. By recognizing both patterns of behavior and specific single acts as forms of coercive control, the law provides flexibility in addressing the diverse ways that abusers maintain control over their victims.
However, the implementation of this new law will require careful attention to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of protecting victims while not being misused in ways that undermine the integrity of the legal system. Courts, attorneys, and other stakeholders must develop expertise in recognizing and addressing coercive control while maintaining appropriate standards for legal intervention.
The success of the coercive control law will ultimately depend on the legal system’s ability to understand and respond appropriately to the complex dynamics of domestic violence. With proper implementation, training, and ongoing refinement, this law has the potential to provide meaningful protection for victims who have long been underserved by traditional approaches to domestic violence law, representing a significant step forward in the Commonwealth’s commitment to addressing all forms of domestic abuse.