Is Coercive Control Recognized in Connecticut? Jennifer's Law, Explained
Yes. Public Act 21-78 — known as Jennifer's Law, after Connecticut domestic violence victims Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Magnano — was signed by Governor Lamont on June 28, 2021 and took effect October 1, 2021. It wrote “coercive control” into the state's legal definition of domestic violence at Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-1. Here's what the statute actually says, and how it connects to restraining orders and custody proceedings.
What CGS § 46b-1 actually says
Before Jennifer's Law, Title 46b — Connecticut's family law title — had no single, general definition of “domestic violence” that applied across the whole title. PA 21-78 created one. Under § 46b-1(b), “domestic violence” means any of four things: a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury against a family or household member; stalking of a family or household member; a pattern of threatening that intimidates a family or household member or a third party; or coercive control of a family or household member — defined as “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person's free will and personal liberty.” The statute doesn't leave that definition abstract. It lists specific examples of coercive control: unreasonably isolating someone from friends, relatives, or other sources of support; depriving them of basic necessities; controlling, regulating, or monitoring their movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services; compelling them by force, threat, or intimidation — including threats based on actual or suspected immigration status — to act or refrain from acting; threatening cruelty to animals to intimidate them; and forcing sex acts or making threats of a sexual nature.
The restraining order and custody connection
Because § 46b-1's definition applies throughout Title 46b unless context says otherwise, it feeds directly into other family law statutes rather than sitting on its own. On the restraining order side, § 46b-15 — the statute that governs who can apply for a civil restraining order — now makes coercive control an independent, eligible basis for relief, not just a factor considered alongside physical abuse. On the custody side, Connecticut's Office of Legislative Research has confirmed that the provisions governing appointment of guardians ad litem and counsel for minor children (§ 46b-54), custody orders in dissolution and separation actions (§ 46b-56), and visitation rights (§ 46b-59) all specifically incorporate the § 46b-1 definition of domestic violence. In practice, that means a documented pattern of coercive control is not confined to a restraining order petition — it can also be relevant to how a court approaches custody and visitation.
Why this makes text messages relevant evidence
Two things line up here that are worth noticing. First, coercive control is defined as a pattern — one message, taken alone, rarely demonstrates a pattern of behavior the way a full thread across weeks or months can. Second, the statute's own examples describe territory a text thread often lives in directly: controlling communications, monitoring, threats, compelling someone to act or not act. A lot of coercive control now happens — and gets documented — in writing, which is exactly why an organized export of a thread can matter more than any single screenshot.
This is general information about Connecticut law as currently written, not legal advice. Statutes get amended and courts interpret them differently case by case — talk to a Connecticut family law attorney about how this applies to your situation. Verity is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
See the pattern across the whole thread
Upload your export and get a free health score in minutes — the analysis runs in your browser, nothing is uploaded.
Get your free health score →