SB 844 would expand Florida’s statutory definition of “domestic violence” to expressly include “coercive control” by one family or household member over another, in addition to the existing list of violent offenses such as assault, battery, stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and other crimes causing physical injury or death. That definitional change is then carried through a wide range of Florida statutes that rely on the domestic violence definition, so the bill would affect criminal procedure, family law, child welfare, injunctions for protection, risk protection orders, pretrial release, sentencing, probation conditions, professional licensing, insurance practices, unemployment benefits, and various confidentiality and screening provisions.
The bill also makes several technical and conforming changes to ensure the new definition is used consistently across the Florida Statutes. In practice, it would broaden the circumstances under which conduct can be treated as domestic violence for purposes of arrest, prosecution, injunctions, batterers’ intervention programs, child custody and time-sharing decisions, juvenile detention, and other legal consequences. It also preserves and reenacts many existing provisions that reference domestic violence, including rules that protect victims, impose enhanced penalties or supervision requirements on offenders, and restrict certain benefits or professional roles for persons with domestic violence histories.
Substantively, the most significant policy change is the addition of coercive control to the domestic violence definition. That term is not otherwise defined in the bill, but its inclusion suggests a broader, non-physical pattern of domination or control could be treated as domestic violence under Florida law. Because the bill amends the core definition in s. 741.28, the change would ripple into numerous related statutes that incorporate that definition by reference.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective of victims and supportive of a more expansive domestic violence framework. The bill’s structure emphasizes victim safety, law enforcement response, prosecution, custody protections, and mandatory intervention for offenders. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill ultimately died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, indicating it did not advance to final passage.
The main point of potential contention is the new inclusion of “coercive control.” Supporters would likely view it as a needed recognition of abuse that is psychological, controlling, or non-physical, while critics may question the term’s breadth, enforceability, and potential for subjective application in criminal, family, and administrative settings. Because the bill would affect so many downstream statutes, another likely concern is the scope of unintended consequences from changing a foundational definition used across multiple areas of law.
SB 844 would amend the definition of domestic violence in ss. 414.0252 and 741.28, Florida Statutes, to include coercive control, and would conform numerous other statutes that reference that definition. The bill would therefore affect criminal enforcement, injunctions, sentencing, pretrial release, child custody and dependency proceedings, juvenile detention, unemployment benefits, professional licensing and screening, insurance underwriting, and victim services. It would broaden the legal reach of domestic violence-related protections and penalties across state law.
The bill appears to be framed as a victim-protection measure and is generally supportive of stronger domestic violence intervention and enforcement. Its text reflects a pro-prosecution, safety-focused approach and expands protections across family, criminal, and administrative law. However, the bill died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, and no vote or transcript data are provided, so there is no recorded committee debate in the materials to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.
The primary likely point of contention is the bill’s addition of “coercive control” to the domestic violence definition. Supporters would likely argue that it captures abusive conduct that does not always involve physical violence, while opponents may be concerned that the term is vague, difficult to prove, and could expand domestic violence findings into more disputes in criminal and family court. A secondary concern is the bill’s broad ripple effect, since changing the core definition would alter many statutes that rely on it, potentially affecting custody, bail, employment, licensing, and benefits determinations.