What is “Coercive Control” and what does the new Massachusetts Law mean?
Protection for victims of domestic violence by way of an abuse prevention order in Massachusetts requires the plaintiff to prove that “abuse” has occurred. So, what exactly is “abuse” according to the law? Until last month the term abuse has been defined in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 209A.
The definition was this: the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:
(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm;
(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;
(c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.
That left a lot of people asking whether controlling behavior, psychological abuse, or financial abuse, could form the grounds for a restraining order in the district and probate and family courts of Massachusetts. The answer was, usually, no. The coercive control bill changed that.
On September 18, 2024, a new law took effect statewide expanding the definition of abuse to include “coercive control.” What is coercive control? The definition is long, broad, and will likely invite legal battles in years to come. You can read the entire list here. Briefly, “coercive control” can include a pattern of behavior “that causes that family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy” including isolation, deprivation of basic needs, monitoring finances and movements, threatening to harm a child or animal, intentionally damaging property, or publishing sexually explicit images.
This law will make it easier for victims of non-physical abuse to obtain restraining orders. The new legislation provides other protections and penalties in the realm of domestic violence. Until now, Massachusetts was one of only two states that had not passed laws criminalizing so-called “revenge porn” The new law made Massachusetts the 49th state to outlaw revenge porn, including “deep fakes,” and extends the statute of limitations for crimes of domestic violence.
Anticipated challenges to the law
In the restraining order realm, we expect to see litigation to better define how a person can prove a “reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy” sufficient to obtain a 209A restraining order. It also remains to be seen what level of behavior by the defendant rises to that which would cause a reasonable person to have such a reduced sense of autonomy. For example, what is financial control under the coercive control law as opposed to ordinary marital disputes about finances? If two parties location share with each other on their cell phones, can one later use that to claim that they have been monitored and therefore now feel a reduced sense of autonomy? In short, where is the line between disagreement and abuse? Where is the line between feeling a reduced sense of freedom and being a victim of abuse such that a court order of protection is warranted? Some victims advocates are concerned that abusers could manipulate the system by claiming coercive control to obtain restraining orders against victims. Practitioners will have to look to other areas of law as well as social science research to assist in defining these lines. Some states such as Connecticut and California have already addressed these issues and savvy Massachusetts litigators will look to the law in those states as this new terrain is explored in the Commonwealth.
From our practical experience, judges are generally adept at discerning the difference between an abused person and one who is merely aggrieved or seeking revenge by way of a restraining order. But the new law places all judges and the Massachusetts legal community in a difficult position, having to find where a spouse’s unwelcome behavior becomes abuse, under the new coercive control law.
Full Definition of Coercive Control
(a) a pattern of behavior intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes that family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy, including, but not limited to:
(i) isolating the family or household member from friends, relatives or other sources of support;
(ii) depriving the family or household member of basic needs;
(iii) controlling, regulating or monitoring the family or household member’s activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources or access to services, including through technological means;
(iv) compelling a family or household member to abstain from or engage in a specific behavior or activity, including engaging in criminal activity;
(v) threatening to harm a child or relative of the family or household member;
(vi) threatening to commit cruelty or abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member;
(vii) intentionally damaging property belonging to the family or household member;
(viii) threatening to publish sensitive personal information relating to the family or household member, including sexually explicit images; or
(ix) using repeated court actions found by a court not to be warranted by existing law or good faith argument; or (b) a single act intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes the family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy of: (i) harming or attempting to harm a child or relative of the family or household member; (ii) committing or attempting to commit abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member; or (iii) publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of the family or household member.
