When the Connecticut mother of five Jennifer Dulos left her husband in June of 2017, she sought a restraining order against him. A judge denied her request because she could not show he physically abused her.

In May of 2019, as she returned home from dropping her children off at school, her estranged husband violently attacked her in the garage of her New Canaan home and murdered her. Charged with murder and other crimes, her husband committed suicide in February 2020.

Last year, Connecticut passed a law expanding the state’s definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control — when a person attempts to dominate an intimate partner by subjecting them to psychological, sexual, technological or financial abuse — behavior that is often a precursor to physical violence.

The law’s lead sponsor, Sen. Alex Kasser, called her bill “Jennifer’s Law” after Jennifer Dulos. The law makes it easier for abuse victims to obtain restraining orders and protect their children.

“Current domestic violence law does not adequately recognize forms of abuse other than physical abuse,” says Lisa Fontes, a senior lecturer in Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Fontes is the author of “Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship,” the second book ever written on coercive control.

“Survivors report that the psychological control and manipulation is often the worst part of the abuse,” says Fontes. “Victims are made to feel afraid. Abusers deprive them of resources such as friends and money — so they feel trapped. Without laws that specifically mention coercive control, people who are being victimized — and we are mostly speaking about women — often cannot get protection.”

Massachusetts legislators are now considering legislation, H.1653/S.1112, that would expand the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control and technological abuse for the purposes of restraining orders. These bills define coercive control as “a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions ... designed to make an individual dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence, and regulating their everyday behavior.”

The bill defines technological abuse as “behavior intended to harm, threaten, intimidate, control, stalk, harass, impersonate, or monitor another person ... that occurs via the Internet, social networking sites, computers, mobile devices, cellular telephones, apps, location tracking devices, instant messages, text messages, or other forms of technology.”

Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, supports these bills, as well as Safe Passage, Northampton’s domestic violence service provider.

“Coercive control is pretty common as a tactic,” says Marianne Winters, executive director of Safe Passage. “And in order to interrupt that tactic, it takes building in some consequences, but also building in more understanding at all levels of the court system — judges, clerks, police — to understand how that dynamic is present.”

In addition to Connecticut, three other states have passed coercive control laws: Hawaii, California and Washington. The California law allows courts to consider coercive control in custody and visitation decisions. The Washington law addresses abusive litigation as a form of coercive control by prohibiting the misuse of family law cases or civil lawsuits in order to control, harass, intimidate, coerce and/or impoverish an abused partner.

Sunderlund state Rep. Natalie Blais has introduced a bill, H. 4149, that would prohibit a person found to have abused an intimate partner from filing a frivolous lawsuit against them for the purpose of “harassing, intimidating, threatening or maintaining contact with the other party.”

The bill has the support of Safe Passage and Jane Doe Inc.

“Unfortunately, many domestic abusers do not stop trying to control their former partner once the relationship is over,” says Fontes. “One common tactic of post separation abuse is to use the courts to contact, harass, and impoverish the former partner. This could take the form of continually dragging the ex to court to negotiate matters related to shared children or property or for any reason under the sun, really.”

Several countries around the world have passed coercive control laws. France became the first in 2010 when it adopted a ban against “psychological violence within marriage.” Since then, several other countries have done so, including England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Canada.

Winters sees value in having coercive control defined in the law. “Giving it a name sometimes actually helps people identify with it. It can help them move on from ‘something doesn’t feel right, something feels unhealthy.’ It also adds to the community conversation and can be utilized in training of therapists, medical providers and social workers so that they can have a clearer understanding of what to look for. Having it in legislation can do that.”

Massachusetts law should require courts to consider evidence of coercive control in making decisions relating to restraining orders, child custody, and other family law matters as a way to prevent this abusive behavior and its escalation to physical violence.

Carrie Baker is a professor in the Program for the Study of Women and Gender at Smith College and a regular contributor to Ms. Magazine.]]>