As states across the country consider (and in many cases pass) “coercive control” laws aimed at expanding domestic-violence protections, a growing debate is emerging: Where is the line between real protection and government overreach?

Advocates claim coercive-control legislation protects people—especially women—from non-physical patterns of domination such as financial restrictions, isolation, or threats. But critics warn that the statutes are often vague, subjective, easily weaponized, and lack due-process checks.

The California Law Review recently published an article arguing in favor of these laws, framing them as necessary modern responses to “invisible abuse.” But a closer reading raises questions that legislators, courts, and families cannot ignore.

This article takes a right-of-center look at the debate—and offers practical solutions that protect victims without eroding constitutional safeguards.

---

The Promise—and Peril—of Coercive-Control Legislation

Across California, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, and other states, coercive control is now recognized in family-court proceedings. More states are considering criminal statutes as well.

But the laws share one problem:

1. The definition of “coercive control” is alarmingly broad.

Many bills include language such as:

• “controlling behavior,”
• “psychological manipulation,”
• “monitoring communications,”
• “financial interference,” or
• “demeaning conduct.”

These sound intuitive—but in practice capture a massive spectrum of normal, imperfect human behavior, from household disagreements to financial budgeting.

When almost anything can be labeled abuse, almost anything will be.

---

Family Court Is Already a Battlefield — Coercive Control Ups the Stakes

Right-of-center critics have long warned that family courts already incentivize allegations during custody disputes.

Coercive-control statutes make this easier:

• They require no physical injury.

• They rely almost entirely on subjective perception.

• They shift power toward whoever can frame themselves as “afraid.”

This creates a perfect storm for false allegations, especially in high-conflict custody battles.

The Law Review article waves this away, arguing that judges and social workers are trained enough to “identify true abuse.” But case after case shows the opposite—families are torn apart based on unchecked accusations, therapists’ opinions, or poorly supported emergency orders.

---

The Due-Process Gap

Most coercive-control laws allow judges to issue restraining orders or grant sole custody based solely on:

• one party’s sworn declaration
• subjective fear
• disputed text messages
• interpretations of “tone,” “demeaning acts,” or “emotional dominance”

This raises fundamental due-process concerns:

• No clear evidentiary standard

Most states assign coercive control to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard—the lowest possible burden.

• No requirement for expert testimony

Psychological abuse is complex, but courts rarely require experts to validate claims.

• No falsification penalties

False allegations often go unpunished, creating asymmetric risk.

• No cross-examination in emergency protective orders

Ex parte hearings allow a judge to separate a parent from their home or child without hearing the other side.

Right-of-center legal scholars argue this flips the presumption of innocence on its head.

---

But Real Victims Need Protection — So What’s the Answer?

A serious critique of coercive-control law must also offer a path forward. The right-of-center approach is not to ignore emotional abuse—but to build guardrails that protect due process while supporting legitimate victims.

Here are five policy solutions that strike that balance:

---

Solution 1 — Require Objective Evidence

Instead of relying solely on emotional perception or self-reported fear, legislators should require corroborating indicators, such as:

• financial records
• documented threats
• patterns reflected in digital communications
• therapist records from neutral providers, not custody-linked evaluators
• law-enforcement reports

Coercive control cannot remain a purely subjective category.

---

Solution 2 — Establish Clear, Narrow Definitions

Statutes must precisely define:

• what behaviors qualify
• what duration or repetition is required
• what thresholds distinguish abusive conduct from normal conflict

Without clear boundaries, the law is a weapon.

---

Solution 3 — Mandatory Cross-Examination Before Major Orders

No parent should lose custody or be removed from their home unless the accused has been given:

• notice
• a hearing
• the right to present evidence
• the right to cross-examine the accuser

This is the bedrock of American justice.

---

Solution 4 — Penalties for False or Reckless Allegations

To restore balance, states should enact:

• sanctions for knowingly false allegations
• perjury penalties that are actually enforced
• attorney-fee shifting when one party abuses the system

This discourages weaponization.

---

Solution 5 — Require Training for Judges and Social Workers

But not ideological training.

Instead:

Real training should include:

• differentiating high-conflict divorces from actual abuse
• understanding personality disorders that often drive false allegations
• identifying parental alienation tactics
• recognizing gender-based biases (against men and women)
• balancing safety concerns with constitutional protections

Right-of-center reformers argue that competency, not ideology, is the solution.

---

A Better Way Forward

Coercive control is real. Emotional abuse is real. But poorly defined laws—combined with a broken family-court system—risk turning trauma into a political tool and weaponizing domestic-violence frameworks.

A right-of-center approach argues for something better:

Protect victims.

Preserve families.

Defend due process.

The goal shouldn’t be expanding government power into private relationships. It should be ensuring that when the government steps in, it does so with precision, fairness, and constitutional restraint.

If coercive-control legislation is going to continue spreading across the country, lawmakers owe it to citizens—men and women, parents and children—to get it right.