What This Means for Domestic Violence Victims and Defendants

On September 18, 2024, Massachusetts introduced significant changes to the state's domestic violence law by expanding the definition of “abuse” under Mass General Laws Chapter 209A restraining orders. A 209A restraining order is a civil order that is issued by a court to protect someone from abuse such as physical harm, threats, or intimidation by a family or household member. (Client Advisory: Understanding Your Legal Options: Abuse Prevention and Harassment Prevention Orders in Massachusetts) The new law broadens the scope of abuse by incorporating the concept of coercive control, marking a profound shift in how domestic abuse is understood and addressed in the Commonwealth.

Before the recent amendment to Chapter 209A, the legal framework under Chapter 209A focused almost exclusively on physical acts of violence or the fear of such violence. The definition of abuse was limited to causing or attempting to cause physical harm, placing someone in fear of imminent physical harm, or forcing someone into sexual acts through threat or force. The new law extends these protections by recognizing coercive control as a form of abuse. More specifically, the statute defines coercive control as:

“(a) a pattern of behavior intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes that family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy, including, but not limited to:

(i) isolating the family or household member from friends, relatives or other sources of support;
(ii) depriving the family or household member of basic needs;
(iii) controlling, regulating or monitoring the family or household member’s activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources or access to services, including through technological means;
(iv) compelling a family or household member to abstain from or engage in a specific behavior or activity, including engaging in criminal activity;
(v) threatening to harm a child or relative of the family or household member;
(vi) threatening to commit cruelty or abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member;
(vii) intentionally damaging property belonging to the family or household member;
(viii) threatening to publish sensitive personal information relating to the family or household member, including sexually explicit images; or
(ix) using repeated court actions found by a court not to be warranted by existing law or good faith argument; or          

(b) a single act intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of a family or household member that causes the family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy of: 

(i) harming or attempting to harm a child or relative of the family or household member; 
(ii) committing or attempting to commit abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member; or 
(iii) publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of the family or household member.”

This expanded definition captures a wider range of behaviors, such as financial control, persistent monitoring of a partner’s activities, isolating them from family and friends, and threatening to share intimate images. Under the revised law, these actions are now sufficient to justify the issuance of a restraining order, providing earlier legal intervention for victims who may not have faced physical abuse but are trapped in psychologically abusive situations.

The implications of this shift are considerable. For victims, this new legal standard offers a broader path to safety. They no longer need to wait for physical harm to be imminent before seeking legal protection. The new law also accepts that abuse can be non-physical, recognizing the severe psychological toll of coercive control. It is likely that the concept of coercive control will also have an impact on custody determinations. Probate and Family Court judges are already required to consider abuse when making custody orders, but it remains to be seen how they will incorporate this new definition into their analysis. 

While expanding the scope of abuse is beneficial in theory, the new law is not without its downsides. Many have raised concerns about how courts will distinguish between genuine cases of coercive control and situations where claims of abuse may be exaggerated or unfounded. The law allows for the introduction of evidence in restraining order cases that could be subjective—such as a diminished sense of autonomy or persistent unwanted behavior—which may open the door to more contested cases and increased judicial scrutiny. Judges will be tasked with carefully evaluating whether certain behaviors, while potentially unpleasant or controlling, meet the threshold of legal abuse.

For those impacted by the new law, whether seeking protection or defending against a restraining order, it is critical to understand how these changes might affect your legal rights. Victims of coercive control now have more robust legal protections, but the broadening of the law also means that individuals accused of such behavior may face increased challenges. 

This new chapter in Massachusetts domestic violence law is a significant step forward in recognizing the full spectrum of abusive behaviors, but it also demands careful application by the courts to ensure that justice is fairly administered in all cases.

For those navigating these legal changes, it is important to seek qualified legal counsel to understand how this new law might affect your specific case. Contact our office for guidance on how the new coercive control standard may impact your rights and responsibilities under Chapter 209A.