Coercive Control
This page is designed to help lawmakers, professionals, and the public understand coercive control, hear survivor experiences, and explore policy language that better protects victims while preserving due process.
What Is Coercive Control
Coercive control is a pattern of behaviors used to dominate, entrap, or strip another person of autonomy over time—often without visible violence. Unlike isolated incidents, coercive control is understood through the cumulative pattern and its impact on safety, freedom, and stability.
Why It Matters in Utah and Other Areas
Why current laws and court practices often miss this harm
- Coercive control can be mischaracterized as “high conflict,” obscuring power imbalance.
- Survivor trauma responses may be misread as instability rather than evidence of ongoing harm.
- Post-separation coercive control can continue through legal processes, finances, housing, isolation, parenting arrangements, surveilling, stalking and more.
Education and precise language can help systems recognize patterns earlier and reduce preventable harm.
Utah Statistics
Easy-to-scan graphs showing how risk can be missed
These data points help explain why people may later say, “there were no signs,” even when coercive control existed.
52
Utah • Jul 2023–Jan 2025domestic violence–related homicides were recorded in Utah
This count includes domestic violence–related homicide cases documented in Utah during this period.
46.1%
Utah • 2009–2016 (derived)of intimate partner violence–related homicide cases did not have a known intimate partner violence history reported to authorities by others (derived)
Plain-language takeaway: Nearly half of cases may not show a “known history” in the system, even when coercive control patterns were present.
Utah VIPP — Intimate Partner and Domestic Violence Fatalities (PDF)
~49%
Utah • 2009–2016of intimate partner violence–related homicides involved murder–suicide in Utah
This highlights the high lethality risk in intimate partner violence cases, especially around separation and escalation.
22.7%
Utah • 2009–2016of Utah homicide victims died in an intimate partner violence or domestic violence–related incident
A substantial portion of homicides are connected to intimate partner or domestic violence, even when the warning signs aren’t well documented.
Research Insight
Evidence-BasedCoercive control as a pattern linking risk indicators over time
Research supports coercive control as a pattern-based framework that connects multiple risk indicators across time, rather than isolated incidents. This pattern has been described as a “golden thread” running through domestic violence risk assessment — helping explain why danger may be present even when no single event appears extreme or reportable.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2020)
Safeguards: Preventing Misuse While Protecting Survivors
Coercive control language must be drafted carefully so it cannot be weaponized against survivors for help-seeking, documentation, boundary-setting, or protective parenting.
Survivors have raised a real concern that coercive control laws could be misused. At the same time, many survivors and children currently have limited or no legal recourse for ongoing patterns of domination, retaliation, intimidation, isolation, and legal-process misuse— especially when the harm is primarily non-physical.
We need to start — carefully and intentionally
- Require a pattern over time, not a single incident.
- Assess power imbalance and cumulative impact, not mutual conflict.
- Exclude good-faith safety actions (help-seeking, documentation, protective parenting).
- Support training and guidance for reliable evaluation.
We can be careful — and we can begin.
Suggested Language to Support Better Recognition of Coercive Control
These options are offered as a starting point to support conversation and refinement. They are designed to improve recognition of coercive control while preserving due process.
A. Why Language Matters
Precise language helps courts distinguish coercive control from mutual conflict, recognize patterns of harm, and respond in ways that increase safety rather than escalation.
B. Sample Definition of Coercive Control (What it is and what it isn’t)
“Coercive Control” means a pattern of behavior that, when considered in context and over time, is intended to establish or maintain dominance over another person, and that results in a substantial restriction of that person’s autonomy, physical safety, freedom of action, independent decision-making, or access to housing, financial resources, or support systems.
Coercive control may include physical or non-physical conduct, including intimidation, threats, environmental violence, misuse of legal or administrative processes, economic deprivation, reputational harm, or isolation, when such conduct is used to punish, retaliate against, or override another person’s ability to act independently or disengage safely.
In determining whether conduct constitutes coercive control, the court shall assess the relative power, access to resources, caregiving responsibilities, and cumulative impact of the conduct, and shall not infer coercive control from:
- actions taken under constraint or necessity;
- protective or safety-oriented parenting decisions;
- documentation, evidence preservation, or help-seeking;
- use of lawful processes in good faith; or
- outward demeanor, composure, or advocacy.
Coercive control does not include actions taken in good faith to protect oneself, a child, or a vulnerable adult; to secure housing, safety, or stability; to seek legal, medical, therapeutic, or supportive services; or to avoid harm, retaliation, or further abuse.
C. Clarifying Provisions (Examples)
- Pattern-based assessment: conduct is evaluated in context and over time, not as isolated incidents.
- Exclusion of good-faith safety actions:
- Recognition of post-separation abuse: coercive control may continue or escalate after separation, including through legal processes, surveillance, threats of harm to self or others for the purpose of dominating, punishing or controlling.
- Avoidance of false equivalence: mutual disagreement does not equal mutual coercive control; power imbalance matters.
D. Conversation Starters
- What language best distinguishes coercive control from “conflict” while protecting due process?
- What training or guidance do decision-makers need to assess patterns and context reliably?
- How can Utah reduce legal-process misuse without limiting legitimate access to courts?
E. Can we use this definition?
Permission for use of the definition and accompanying language provided on this page are offered for public use. Legislators, legislative staff, policymakers, and legal counsel are expressly permitted to use, adapt, modify, or incorporate this language, in whole or in part, for legislation or policy, with or without attribution. However, use for educational or training purposes does require attribution to H.E.R. Wings Unfold. Use of this language does not imply endorsement by, or affiliation with, H.E.R. Wings Unfold.
Survivor Experiences
Survivor stories are shared to illuminate patterns that can be difficult to explain in legal or clinical language. Identifying details are removed, and excerpts are shared with survivor consent.
“Even when I found moments of courage or clarity, I remained psychologically entrapped by the knowledge that asserting independence would likely result in retaliation through intimidation, legal pressure, or harm to my children. Strength did not equal freedom.”
“Separation did not end the abuse; it transformed it and in many ways the abuse increased. Once the relationship ended, the court system became the new stage for coercive control, allowing intimidation, financial pressure, even a ruling that made me and my children homeless. The retaliation intensified under the appearance of legal process.”
“The court misunderstood my situation as ‘mutual conflict.’ Much evidence had been submitted against my ex to show terrifying behaviors and thought patterns plus significant harm to me and my children. I do not believe that any of it was genuinely considered. When I brought up my concerns to the GAL, he stated that the statute says that children need very basic things like a bed, clothes, food and car with a seatbelt. Their psychological well-being was not taken into consideration.”
Coercive Control in Court
- Courts frequently reframe coercive control as “high conflict,” a characterization that erases power imbalance and treats patterned intimidation, retaliation, and domination as mutual disagreement.
- When courts prioritize procedural symmetry or parental access over safety assessment, coercive control can be inadvertently legitimized, prolonged, or escalated through court orders.
- Survivors are often labeled “difficult,” “uncooperative,” or “emotionally unstable” for behaviors that are, in fact, protective responses to ongoing threat, destabilization, and the need to shield children from harm.
- Children are especially vulnerable in these cases. When coercive control is misidentified or minimized, court processes can expose children to continued trauma, forced contact, and preventable psychological harm.
In court-involved cases, coercive control commonly operates through misuse of legal processes, strategic filings or delays, financial and housing deprivation, reputational attacks, and compelled or prolonged contact—particularly in custody and parenting matters. Absent a pattern-based and power-informed analysis, courts may unintentionally become instruments through which coercive control is maintained, rather than disrupted.
Common Myths vs Reality
Myth: “There’s no abuse if there’s no physical violence.”
Reality: Coercive control can be severe and dangerous without visible injuries.
Myth: “Both people seem emotional, so it’s mutual.”
Reality: Trauma responses do not indicate equal power or equal responsibility.
Myth: “Why didn’t they just leave?”
Reality: Leaving can increase risk; coercive control often escalates during and after separation.
The Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness reports that 75% of domestic violence–related murders take place when a victim separates from their abuser, and that the risk of violence increases substantially for at least two years afterward.
Myth: “If it’s real, it should be easy to explain.”
Reality: Coercive control is complex by design. Confusion, fragmentation, and hesitation are expected outcomes, not evidence that harm did not occur.
What Survivors Say Would Help
- Immediate and heightened protection at the point of help-seeking, when disclosure, separation, or court involvement significantly increases risk.
- Training to recognize coercive control as a pattern of power and domination, rather than isolated incidents or mutual conflict.
- Early, safety-first court procedures that assess risk before imposing symmetry, contact, or compliance requirements.
- Clear guidance preventing courts from punishing safety-seeking behavior.
- Meaningful limits and accountability for misuse of legal processes used to intimidate, exhaust, or maintain control.
Resources & Support
If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
- Utah Domestic Violence Coalition (24/7): 1-800-897-LINK (5465)
- National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
- 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: 988
- TS-12 Anon , the first trauma-sensitive 12-Step program for survivors of relational harm.
Get Involved
- Share a survivor story (if safe). We are using survivor stories to give survivors a voice while advocating for meaningful change.