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 and criminal court procedures. Coercive control is defined as a pattern of behavior used to dominate, intimidate, or subordinate another person in a way that unreasonably interferes with free will, personal liberty, or autonomy, or causes fear for safety. The definition expressly includes conduct such as isolation from support networks, monitoring communications and movements, controlling money or employment, restricting access to housing, transportation, health care, or employment, digital surveillance, repeated verbal degradation, and misuse of legal or administrative processes to harass or intimidate.
The bill also amends family offense jurisdiction provisions so that acts constituting coercive control are treated similarly to other domestic violence-related offenses. It 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. In divorce, separation, custody, and visitation matters, courts must consider proven coercive control when determining the best interests of the child, and the bill extends that consideration to domestic relations proceedings involving custody or visitation.
In addition, the bill directs the Office of Court Administration, in consultation with domestic violence agencies, to develop mandatory training for judges, clerks, and other court staff on coercive control. The training must cover the statutory definition, patterns of conduct, evidentiary issues, order-of-protection proceedings, survivor safety, and the impact on children and custody/visitation, with refresher training required at least every two years. The bill also makes conforming amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Judiciary Law, and Domestic Relations Law to incorporate the new term and procedures.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text and its framing is strongly supportive of expanding legal recognition of domestic abuse beyond physical violence to include nonphysical, patterned abuse. The bill’s structure suggests a policy goal of improving survivor access to protection orders and ensuring courts are trained to identify and respond to coercive control. No committee transcript or vote data was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or debate in the supplied materials.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on proof and scope: how courts will distinguish coercive control from ordinary relationship conflict, lawful parenting decisions, or legitimate efforts to protect safety and children. The bill attempts to address that concern by excluding reasonable safety-related actions and lawful authority, and by requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Another likely issue is implementation, including the burden on courts to update forms, train personnel, and apply a relatively new legal concept consistently across family and criminal proceedings.
The bill would add a new statewide legal definition of coercive control and integrate it into family offense, protection order, custody, visitation, and domestic relations proceedings. It would amend the Family Court Act, Criminal Procedure Law, Judiciary Law, and Domestic Relations Law, expanding the grounds on which courts may issue orders of protection and requiring courts to consider coercive control in child-related determinations. It also mandates judicial and court staff training and authorizes related administrative guidance and forms, affecting courts, litigants in domestic relations and family offense cases, and survivors seeking protection.
The bill appears to have a generally supportive, survivor-protection-oriented policy posture, with the text emphasizing domestic violence prevention, court training, and child safety. Because no committee discussion or vote history was provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to report beyond the bill’s apparent intent and structure. The measure is framed as a modernization of domestic violence law to recognize coercive and controlling behavior as actionable harm.
The main likely contention is whether coercive control can be defined and proven with enough clarity to avoid overreach or inconsistent application. Critics could worry about subjective findings, false allegations in custody disputes, and the potential for the concept to be used in contentious family litigation. Supporters are likely to emphasize that the bill includes limiting language excluding reasonable safety measures and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Another practical concern is the administrative burden on courts to retrain staff, revise forms, and apply the new standard across multiple legal contexts.