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.
This bill creates a statutory definition of “coercive control” in the Family Court Act and uses that definition across family, criminal, and domestic relations law. Coercive control is defined as a pattern of behavior used to dominate, intimidate, or subordinate another person in a way that interferes with free will, personal liberty, autonomy, or causes fear for safety. The definition expressly includes conduct such as isolation from support networks, monitoring movements or communications, controlling money or employment, restricting access to housing, transportation, health care, or employment, digital surveillance, misuse of legal processes, and repeated verbal degradation.
The bill also authorizes courts to issue orders of protection based on a finding of coercive control by a preponderance of the evidence, requires court forms to be updated to include coercive control as a basis for relief, and allows continued coercive control after an order is issued to support contempt findings. It further directs the Office of Court Administration to develop mandatory training for judges, clerks, and other court staff on coercive control, including evidentiary issues, survivor safety, and effects on children, with refresher training every two years. In custody and visitation cases, courts would be required to consider proven coercive control when determining the child’s best interests.
The bill would amend the Family Court Act, Criminal Procedure Law, Judiciary Law, and Domestic Relations Law, expanding how domestic abuse-related conduct is handled in both family and criminal court. It clarifies concurrent jurisdiction over family offense proceedings involving coercive control, adds coercive control to the list of conduct relevant to family offense and protective-order proceedings, and incorporates the concept into divorce, separation, annulment, custody, and visitation matters. The measure would also affect court administration by requiring new training materials, bench cards, guidance, and updated forms.
Overall, the bill appears to have a protective and reform-oriented purpose, with the available context indicating support for recognizing coercive control as a serious form of domestic abuse. The caption and text suggest the bill is intended to strengthen legal remedies for survivors and improve judicial understanding of coercive control. No vote totals or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or debate in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the coercive control definition, how courts would distinguish abusive conduct from lawful parenting or safety-related actions, and the evidentiary burden in proving a pattern of behavior. The bill anticipates some of that concern by excluding reasonable actions taken to protect one’s own or children’s safety and lawful authority, but the expanded role of coercive control in custody, visitation, and protective-order decisions could still raise concerns among litigants, family law practitioners, and judges about proof, interpretation, and implementation.
The bill would add a new statutory definition of coercive control to the Family Court Act and incorporate that term into the Criminal Procedure Law and Domestic Relations Law. It would expand the grounds on which courts may issue orders of protection, require courts to consider coercive control in custody and visitation determinations, and mandate statewide judicial and court-staff training. The measure would also affect family offense jurisdiction by expressly including coercive control among the covered acts in family and criminal court proceedings, thereby broadening the legal framework for domestic violence-related relief and court response.
Based on the bill text and caption, the overall sentiment appears supportive and reform-minded, with the legislation framed as a domestic violence protection measure. The bill is designed to recognize coercive control as a legally actionable form of abuse and to improve court handling of such cases through training and updated procedures. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the supplied materials.
The most notable potential contention is the scope of the coercive control definition and whether it could be applied too broadly in family disputes, custody cases, or litigation involving lawful parental decision-making. Another likely issue is evidentiary: the bill relies on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and includes patterns of conduct that may be harder to document than discrete physical acts. Some may also question the administrative burden of mandatory training and form updates for the court system. The bill attempts to address these concerns by excluding reasonable safety-related actions and lawful authority, but the balance between survivor protection and avoiding overreach is the central policy tension.