Is Coercive Control Recognized in Oklahoma? SB 901, Explained
Yes, as of late 2024. Senate Bill 901, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt on April 18, 2024 and effective November 1, 2024 (2024 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 24), amended 43 O.S. § 109 — Oklahoma's custody and joint-custody statute — to add coercive control to the legal definition of domestic violence that can trigger a custody presumption. It's not a freestanding “coercive control law” the way some states have written one; it's a definitional change to a statute that already existed.
What SB 901 actually changed
Before SB 901, § 109 already gave Oklahoma courts a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole, joint, or shared custody to a parent found to have committed child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, or harassment. SB 901 didn't create a new presumption — it expanded what counts as domestic violence for purposes of that existing presumption. The amended definition now includes “coercive control by a parent involving physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, economic or financial abuse.” Once a court makes that finding, the presumption already written into § 109 fires the same way it would for a more traditional domestic violence finding.
Why this framing matters
Because coercive control is folded into the existing domestic violence definition rather than standing on its own, Oklahoma courts are meant to treat a coercive-control finding the same way they'd treat any other domestic-violence finding under § 109 — it isn't a lesser, separate category. That said, this is still a relatively new provision, and how trial courts are actually applying the “psychological, emotional, economic or financial abuse” language in practice is something that will keep developing through case law. Treat this page as an explanation of what the statute says, not a prediction of how any specific judge will rule.
What this means for documenting a pattern
Economic, emotional, and psychological abuse are exactly the categories that tend to show up in writing rather than in a single dramatic incident — controlling access to money, monitoring or restricting communication, repeated degradation over time. A single message rarely establishes any of that on its own; what matters is frequency and consistency across a full thread. See our guide on proving coercive control through text messages for what actually demonstrates a pattern, and the coercive control guide for how other states have approached this differently.
This is general information about Oklahoma law as currently written, not legal advice. SB 901 is still a fairly new provision, and how it's applied in practice will keep developing through case law. Talk to an Oklahoma family law attorney about how it 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 →