Coercive Control and Custody: What the Law Actually Says
Coercive control — a pattern of monitoring, isolation, degradation, and control over daily life, not one dramatic incident — is showing up in family law statutes state by state, but unevenly. Some states have built a custody presumption around it. Others have only added the word to a protective-order definition. A few haven't recognized it as a named legal term at all. This page tracks where each state actually stands, and how to document the pattern regardless of what your state's statute says.
Why it's hard to prove, no matter your state
Whether or not your state names coercive control in a statute, the evidentiary problem is the same: a single message rarely establishes a pattern on its own, and a handful of cherry-picked screenshots invite the exact objection that they're out of context. Courts and evaluators look for frequency, escalation, consistency across triggers, and full threads rather than excerpts. Our deep dive on how to prove coercive control through text messages covers what actually demonstrates a pattern, including DARVO sequences, which show up constantly in coercive-control cases.
Does your state recognize it?
Recognition ranges from a full custody presumption to no named-term statute at all. Here's where each state we've researched actually stands — read the full post before assuming your state works like another one; a few of these look similar on the surface but function very differently.
Oklahoma
SB 901Added coercive control to the domestic violence definition that triggers the existing custody presumption at 43 O.S. § 109.
California (SB 50 update)
SB 50Extended the existing § 6320 coercive-control definition to cover smart locks, trackers, and shared connected-device accounts.
Colorado
HB26-1309Made coercive control an enumerated form of domestic violence and created a rebuttable presumption against joint custody decision-making — not just a best-interests factor.
Arizona
Alec and Lydia ActBuilt a mandatory presumption around coercive control in mid-2026, broader than a joint-custody-only rule (A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03, 25-404, 25-411).
Vermont
Act 103Added coercive controlling behavior to the definition of abuse (15 V.S.A. § 1101) as a direct best-interests custody factor (15 V.S.A. § 665(a)(9)).
Utah
HB 303Defines coercive control at § 81-9-101(2) and adds it as a custody and parent-time factor — with a wrinkle in when different parts of the bill took effect.
Massachusetts
Chapter 118, Acts of 2024Rewrote the definition of abuse in M.G.L. c. 209A to add coercive control, connecting directly to custody through c. 208, § 31.
New Hampshire
HB 1522 (Ch. 230)Adds a coercive control definition to RSA 173-B:1, reaching custody law under RSA 461-A.
Connecticut
Jennifer's LawWrote coercive control into the state's legal definition of domestic violence (CGS § 46b-1), connecting to restraining orders and custody.
Washington
HB 1901 (2022)Added coercive control to the domestic violence definition (RCW 7.105.010), connecting to parenting plans.
New Jersey
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(7)Added coercive control to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act in 2024 — but not as a predicate act, per a 2026 appellate ruling.
California
SB 1141 (2020)Coercive control is part of "disturbing the peace" for a domestic violence restraining order (Family Code § 6320) — an indirect custody hook via the § 3044 presumption, not a standalone custody factor.
Hawaii
HRS § 586-1 (2020)The first state to pass a coercive-control law — but unlike Washington, Connecticut, Colorado, or Vermont, it doesn't yet reach child custody.
Maine
19-A M.R.S. § 4102No standalone coercive-control definition. A 2025 amendment added "coercion" language, but not the named term.
Texas
No named-term statuteFamily violence under Fam. Code § 71.004 / § 153.004 is the hook courts use — coercive control itself isn’t a defined statutory term.
Pennsylvania
Kayden’s Law (Act 8 of 2024)Not a named coercive-control statute — but a rebuttable presumption of supervised-only custody when a court finds an ongoing risk of abuse.
Florida
No enacted statute — twice attemptedTwo bills (2025, 2026) would have added coercive control to the domestic violence definition. Both died before reaching the Governor.
Illinois
No named-term statute + 2026 coerced-debt law“Interference with personal liberty” covers similar ground under existing law, and a new coerced-debt statute gives financial control a real remedy.
Louisiana
Post-Separation Family Violence Relief ActNo named coercive-control term, but a strong custody presumption against a parent with a documented history of family violence.
Michigan
MCL 600.1035 (mediation screening)No custody or PO definition, but mediators are legally required to screen for “a coercive or violent relationship” before mediation starts.
Georgia
No named-term statuteFamily violence under O.C.G.A. § 19-13-1 is offense-based — no separate coercive-control category, and no 2026 bill moving to add one.
South Carolina
“Mica’s Law” (S.702) — stalledA bill that would criminalize coercive control stalled in committee in 2026. Its sponsor plans to reintroduce it in a future session.
This is general information, not legal advice, and statutes change — always confirm current law with a family law attorney in your state before relying on any of the above. Don't see your state listed? We're adding more state-by-state posts on an ongoing basis.
Document the pattern, not just the messages
Whatever your state's statute says, the underlying work is the same: showing the pattern across a full conversation. Upload an export and get a free health score in minutes — analysis runs in your browser, nothing is uploaded.