An Act to Address Coercive Control in Domestic Abuse Cases
Summary
LD 670 amends Maine’s domestic abuse law to expressly include coercive control within the definition of abuse. Specifically, it revises the statutory language in 19-A M.R.S. § 4102 to clarify that compelling a person by force, threat of force, coercion, or intimidation to do something they have a right to refuse, or to refrain from something they have a right to do, constitutes abusive conduct. The bill is framed as an effort to address nonphysical forms of domestic abuse that can be used to dominate or control a victim.
By updating the domestic abuse definition, the bill broadens the legal recognition of coercive and controlling behavior in family and domestic violence cases. This can affect how courts, advocates, and law enforcement evaluate abuse allegations, particularly where the conduct does not involve direct physical violence but still restricts a person’s autonomy. The change may influence protection orders, custody-related proceedings, and other matters where a finding of domestic abuse matters under Maine law.
Impact
The bill amends 19-A M.R.S. § 4102, the statutory definition of domestic abuse, to include coercive control-like conduct expressed through force, threats, coercion, or intimidation. This expands the legal framework used in domestic abuse cases and may affect parties seeking protection from abuse, family court litigants, and professionals applying the domestic abuse statute in civil and related proceedings.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also some opposition. The House and Senate votes on the amended report were not unanimous, indicating that while a majority favored the measure, there was notable disagreement. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed positively by supporters as a needed update to domestic violence law, but not all lawmakers were persuaded that the statutory change was appropriate or necessary.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether Maine law should explicitly recognize coercive control as part of domestic abuse and how broadly that concept should be applied. Supporters would view the amendment as closing a gap in the law by capturing nonphysical abuse, while opponents may have concerns about vagueness, evidentiary challenges, or the potential for expanded litigation in family law and protection order cases. The split votes indicate that these concerns were significant enough to generate opposition, even though the measure ultimately passed.
Amends the definition of "domestic violence" to include the coercive control of another resulting in a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with another person's free will or personal liberty.
To Amend The Domestic Abuse Act Of 1991; To Provide For Remote Testimony In Certain Instances In A Hearing Under The Domestic Abuse Act Of 1991; And To Provide Oversight For A Domestic Violence Intervention Program.
Relates to coercive control; provides that the family court and the criminal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over acts which constitute coercive control; provides that courts may issue orders of protection upon a finding of coercive control; directs the office of court administration, in consultation with the office for the prevention of domestic violence and certain organizations, to develop and administer training for judges and court clerks on coercive control.