Is Coercive Control Recognized in Massachusetts?
Yes. House Bill 4744, “An Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation,” became Chapter 118 of the Acts of 2024, approved June 20, 2024 and effective September 18, 2024 (90 days later, the standard timeline for a Massachusetts act with no emergency preamble). It rewrote the definition of “abuse” in M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 to add coercive control as its own category. Here's exactly what the statute says.
What Section 4 of the act actually says
Section 4 of Chapter 118 strikes the old definition of “Abuse” in c. 209A, § 1 and replaces it with two definitions. “Abuse” is now the occurrence of any of: (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; or (d) coercive control.
“Coercive control” is then defined two ways. The first is a pattern of behavior intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce, or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes them to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy — including, but not limited to: isolating someone from friends, relatives, or other sources of support; depriving them of basic needs; controlling, regulating, or monitoring their activities, communications, movements, finances, or access to services, including through technology; compelling someone to abstain from or engage in a specific behavior or activity, including criminal activity; threatening to harm a child or relative; threatening cruelty or abuse to a connected animal; intentionally damaging property; threatening to publish sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit images; or using repeated court actions a court has found unwarranted by existing law or good-faith argument. The second is a single act, with the same intent and effect, of: harming or attempting to harm a child or relative; committing or attempting to commit abuse to a connected animal; or publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of the person.
The custody connection: M.G.L. c. 208, § 31
Massachusetts custody law lives in a different chapter — c. 208 governs divorce, including custody — but it already cross-references c. 209A directly. Section 31 sets a presumption of temporary shared legal custody while a divorce action is pending, absent emergency conditions, abuse, or neglect. It then provides: if, despite the prior or current issuance of a c. 209A restraining order against one parent, a court still orders shared legal or physical custody — either temporarily or at trial — the court must provide written findings to support that shared-custody order. Because coercive control is now part of the “abuse” definition a c. 209A order can rest on, a documented pattern of coercive control — not just physical violence — can be the basis of the restraining order that triggers this written-findings requirement if a judge nonetheless awards shared custody.
Why this makes text messages relevant evidence
The statute's own list of examples — monitoring someone's communications, controlling their finances, using repeated unwarranted litigation as pressure, threatening to publish sensitive information — describes exactly the kind of conduct a text thread can document over time. Because coercive control is defined as a pattern, a single message rarely tells the story on its own; an organized, timestamped export spanning weeks or months is far more useful for showing that pattern than an isolated screenshot.
This is general information about Massachusetts law as currently written, not legal advice, and this statute is still new. Verity is not a law firm. Talk to a Massachusetts family law attorney about how this applies to your situation 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 →