verity.
← BlogCoercive Control GuideAnalyze a chat →
Family Law

Is Coercive Control Recognized in Maine?

Not the way Washington, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, or Arizona recognize it. Each of those states wrote a standalone “coercive control” definition into their statutes, complete with lists of isolation, monitoring, and financial-control examples. Maine hasn't done that. What it did do, in a bill signed by the governor on June 20, 2025, is add a single word — “coercion” — to an existing compulsion clause inside its definition of “abuse.” Here's exactly what changed, what didn't, and why it still matters for a documented text thread.

What actually changed: 19-A M.R.S. § 4102(1)(C)

The bill was L.D. 670 / H.P. 438, titled “An Act to Address Coercive Control in Domestic Abuse Cases,” and it became Public Law 2025, chapter 379 when the governor signed it on June 20, 2025. Its entire operative text is one sentence. Before the amendment, § 4102(1)(C) — part of the “Abuse” definition in Maine's protection-from-abuse chapter — defined abuse to include: “Compelling a person by force, threat of force, or intimidation” to either engage in conduct they had a right to abstain from, or abstain from conduct they had a right to engage in. The amendment inserted one phrase, so the clause now reads: “Compelling a person by force, threat of force, coercion or intimidation” — the same two-part structure, with “coercion” added as a fourth means of compulsion alongside force, threat of force, and intimidation.

Be precise about what this is not. This is not a standalone coercive-control definition. There is no list of isolation, surveillance, financial-control, or monitoring examples the way Hawaii's HRS § 586-1, Washington's RCW 26.09.191, Connecticut's coercive-control statute, Colorado's, Massachusetts's, Vermont's, New Jersey's, or Arizona's Alec and Lydia Act each provide. Maine's “abuse” definition still runs from paragraph (A) through (I), covering things like bodily injury, placing someone in fear of bodily injury, restricting someone's movement, threats of violence, stalking-type following, and nonconsensual dissemination of private images — and coercion was folded into just one of those paragraphs, the “compelling” clause that already existed. A single word was added to an existing idea; a new, self-contained concept was not created. Treat this as a narrower development than what the other states in this series have done, not an equivalent one.

The custody connection isn't new — this amendment just feeds into it

Maine's custody best-interests factors, at 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3), have long included factor (L): “The existence of domestic abuse between the parents, in the past or currently, and how that abuse affects: (1) The child emotionally; (2) The safety of the child; and (3) The other factors listed in this subsection, which must be considered in light of the presence of past or current domestic abuse.” Section 1653(6) separately requires the court to set conditions on parent-child contact “in cases involving domestic abuse.”

“Domestic abuse” in that custody statute isn't defined from scratch — 19-A M.R.S. § 1501(3) defines it by cross-reference: “‘Domestic abuse’ means abuse as defined in section 4102, subsection 1.” That's the same “abuse” definition the coercion amendment touched. So the custody connection here isn't a new factor the legislature created in 2025 — domestic abuse was already a best-interests factor. What's new is narrower: coercion is now explicitly named as one of the means by which someone can be compelled to act or abstain from acting, within the “abuse” definition that custody law already borrows.

Why this still makes text messages relevant evidence

Even as a narrow addition, naming coercion explicitly matters, because coercion is a harder thing to show than a threat of physical force — it's rarely a single dramatic message. It's pressure applied repeatedly: being told what will happen if you don't comply, being worn down until you agree to something you objected to, being maneuvered into or out of a decision through guilt, ultimatums, or manufactured consequences rather than a direct threat of violence. That's exactly the kind of pattern that shows up across a text thread and rarely shows up in a single screenshot. A full, timestamped export — not a handful of messages pulled out of context — is what lets a court, or an attorney building a protection-from-abuse petition or a custody case, actually see the compulsion play out over weeks or months rather than take your characterization of it on faith.

This is general information about Maine law as currently written, not legal advice. The enacted text of PL 2025, c. 379 carries no emergency clause, which means it did not take effect immediately upon the governor's signature — confirm the exact effective date against the official Session Laws of Maine if the timing matters for your situation. Verity is not a law firm. Talk to a Maine family law attorney about how this applies to your case before relying on anything here.

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 →