Arizona Bill Targets Coercive Control in Family Court

On the morning of May 20, 2024, six-year-old Lydia Mater and her older brother Alec did not arrive at their Arizona elementary school.¹ Lydia had just turned six the week before. She was already reading at first-grade level. Alec, in second grade, was preparing to receive an award for reading one hundred books that year. Their father, Brock Mater, had received unsupervised parenting time. He held that time despite a documented psychiatric hold. He held it despite a violation of a protective order. He held it despite a history of suicidal ideation. On that May morning, he killed both children. Their mother, Hope Hooton, has spent every day since asking how the family court allowed it. She is also asking whether a different law could have saved her children.

Arizona House Bill 2995, known as the Alec and Lydia Act, would require Arizona family courts to prioritize child safety.² It would force judges to document any history of domestic violence before applying the standard presumption of shared parenting time. Crucially, it would include coercive control within the legal definition of domestic violence. The bill passed the Arizona House on a unanimous 52-0 vote. It has also cleared preliminary Senate approval. It now awaits a final Senate vote and a return House vote before reaching Governor Katie Hobbs. Arizona at present leads the United States in child deaths during family court custody cases.

What Survivors Already Know About Family Court

If you have stood in front of a family court judge with documented evidence of abuse, you already know what HB 2995 is trying to fix. Perhaps you watched the court order unsupervised time anyway. You know how it feels to bring police reports, medical records, and text messages into a courtroom. Maybe you have watched judges reframe that evidence as a high-conflict divorce. The language of “co-parenting” and “maximizing time with both parents” will be familiar. That language often functions as a shield against the evidence in front of the judge. You are not imagining the gap. Indeed, the legislation Arizona is now considering names it directly.

For two full years, Hope Hooton has been speaking publicly about that gap. Her account of what happened to Alec and Lydia is not an isolated tragedy. Rather, it is a pattern that researchers, advocates, and survivors have documented across the United States. Children have been killed during court-ordered parenting time. In many cases, the family court ignored clear warning signs.

What HB 2995 Would Change in Arizona Family Court

Under current Arizona law, the family court applies a presumption that “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents serves the best interests of the child. In practice, that presumption usually produces a 50/50 split of parenting time. Domestic violence is one factor a judge may weigh. However, it sits alongside many other factors. Courts often treat it as a competing claim rather than as a safety question. The Alec and Lydia Act changes that sequence.

The bill requires Arizona judges to make written findings about domestic violence before applying the standard best-interests analysis. It directs courts to consider police records, medical history, and prior court findings as primary evidence. Crucially, it broadens the legal definition of domestic violence to include coercive control. The bill specifically names intimidation, isolation, financial control, threats, and technological surveillance as patterns the court must recognize.

The Coercive Control Frame

This is the most significant feature of the bill for survivors. Coercive control was defined in the research literature by Susan Schechter, who introduced the concept, and by Evan Stark, who built it into a full framework.^{3 4} It describes a strategic pattern of dominance. That pattern operates through fear, isolation, and the regulation of everyday life. It does not require physical violence to cause severe harm. For decades, family courts have struggled to recognize coercive control. The phenomenon sits outside the incident-based model that police and prosecutors use. HB 2995 brings the coercive control framework into Arizona family law.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Fink, who represents the state’s 27th Legislative District, has framed the bill in those exact terms. Fink has stated publicly that the bill acknowledges real-world abuse patterns. Furthermore, she has described the link between coercive control, femicide, homicide. and suicide as a significant correlation. That framing aligns with what researchers including Stark, Jane Monckton-Smith, and Emma Katz have established over the past two decades.^{5 6}

Why Arizona Leads the Nation in Child Deaths by Parents in Custody Cases

Arizona’s standing on this measure is not a recent anomaly. Practitioner experience working with Arizona survivors confirms what the data suggests. The state’s family court culture has historically prioritized equal parenting time. This priority has held even where credible evidence of danger exists. Survivors describe documented protective orders dismissed as relationship conflict. They also describe judges who weight a parent’s willingness to “facilitate the relationship” with the other parent. Frequently, that willingness counts more than the other parent’s documented history of violence.

That orientation has produced predictable outcomes. Arizona has had repeated, high-profile cases. In each one, children died during court-ordered unsupervised time with a parent who showed documented warning signs. Each case generates renewed scrutiny. Until now, however, that scrutiny has not produced statutory reform.

The May 20 Anniversary

The timing of the Arizona Mirror‘s reporting and the bill’s advance through the legislature is not coincidental. May 20, 2026 is the second anniversary of the day Alec and Lydia were killed. Survivor-led advocacy has used the anniversary to maintain public attention. The bill’s name — the Alec and Lydia Act — keeps the children at the center of the legislative record. As a result, the policy debate cannot drift toward abstraction.

Colorado Just Passed Similar Legislation

Arizona is not acting in isolation. On May 13, 2026, the final day of Colorado’s legislative session, Colorado passed HB26-1309. The bill is titled “Abuse in Cases of Separation.” Its sponsors were Representative Meg Froelich, Representative Tammy Story, and Senator Katie Wallace. The legislation makes similar structural changes to Colorado family court procedure. Specifically, it requires courts to determine whether a party has committed domestic violence before applying the best-interests-of-the-child analysis. It also defines domestic violence to include coercive control. Notably, this Colorado law now awaits Governor Jared Polis’s signature.

The Colorado and Arizona reforms reflect a broader 2026 wave of state-level legislative attention to coercive control in family court. Moreover, the Global Coercive Control Legislation Index has tracked these reforms across multiple jurisdictions.⁷ The pattern is consistent. In jurisdictions where survivor advocacy has built sustained legislative pressure, that pressure is beginning to translate into structural change. Furthermore, the full account of Colorado’s bill — including the opposition it faced from religious institutions and parental rights organizations — appears in a separate analysis on this platform.

What HB 2995 Does Not Do

It is important to read this bill accurately. The Alec and Lydia Act does not eliminate the rights of accused parents. It does not create automatic loss of custody. Likewise, it does not prevent any parent from contesting an allegation. Rather, it reorders the sequence of judicial inquiry. The court must determine first whether domestic violence has occurred. If the court finds it has, that finding triggers a rebuttable presumption. In effect, the parent can still seek parenting time. However, they must overcome the presumption with evidence.

This structural change matters because the current system places the burden almost entirely on the survivor. Under existing law, a survivor must prove that abuse occurred. She or he must also prove that the abuse should outweigh the presumption of equal parenting. HB 2995 shifts that burden. Specifically, it treats documented abuse as the starting point of the analysis rather than as one factor among many.

Why the Single Sponsor Status Matters Less Than the Vote

Representative Fink is the sole prime sponsor of HB 2995. Some observers have framed this as a partisan bill on that basis. However, the voting record contradicts that framing. The Arizona House passed the bill on a 52-0 vote. That is a unanimous, bipartisan outcome. Whatever the political coloring of the sponsor, the legislative body itself has signaled broad recognition. In short, the current statutory framework is producing unacceptable outcomes for Arizona children.

The Pattern Across States

Coercive control entered United States family law slowly after decades of advocacy. It began with Hawaii HB 2425 in 2020. It has continued through state-by-state amendments to existing domestic violence statutes. Arizona’s bill, if signed, would mark a significant advance in the southwestern United States. Combined with Colorado’s HB26-1309 and continuing developments in other states, 2026 may prove to be the year coercive control became a routine consideration in American family court — at least on paper. However, practitioner experience suggests that statutory change is only the first step. Ultimately, judicial culture and the training of evaluators determine whether new law reaches survivors in practice.

The United Kingdom experience offers a sobering reference point. England and Wales criminalized coercive control in 2015 under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. Conviction rates have drawn sustained academic and advocate critique since then. Similarly, the same gap between law and enforcement exists wherever coercive control law exists. The Index records what the law says. The harder work — whether the law actually reaches survivors — appears elsewhere on this platform. In particular, it appears in the body of recovery and family court coverage.

To learn more about the coercive control legislation changes taking place, read Global Coercive Control Legislation Index: May 2026 Update.

For Arizona Survivors Reading This

If you are now in an Arizona custody case, HB 2995 is not yet law. It still must clear a final Senate vote and a return House vote. It then must receive Governor Hobbs’s signature. Until those steps occur, current Arizona family court procedure applies to your case. Practitioner experience with survivors navigating Arizona custody confirms how exhausting that procedure can be. Documenting coercive control under a system that does not yet recognize it as a distinct category requires preparation. It also requires evidence organization. Moreover, it requires emotional reserves that the abuse itself often prevents survivors from maintaining.

Recovery from coercive control runs in parallel with the legal process, never separate from it. If you are in this position and looking for support, you can book a free 15-minute consultation or learn more about narcissistic abuse recovery coaching. Specialist support during a custody case is not a luxury. Rather, it is part of how survivors keep their footing through a process designed to destabilize them.

Related Links

• Arizona Gripped By A Surge Of Domestic Violence
• Mortal Discard: Five Terminal Patterns in Coercive Control
• Intimate Partner Homicide Memorial Held In Minnesota
• How The Courts Perpetuate The Parental Alienation Industry
• Vermont House Passes Landmark Bill to Combat Coercive Control

Frequently Asked Questions

Get Specialist Support

Coercive control destabilizes the people it targets. Family court can deepen that destabilization. If you are an Arizona survivor navigating a custody case, specialist support can help you hold your ground. The same is true for any survivor whose case touches on coercive control. Book your free 15-minute consultation or read more about narcissistic abuse recovery coaching built specifically for survivors of coercive control and severe presentations.

References

1. Arizona Mirror. (2026, May 20). Arizona leads nation in child deaths by parents in custody cases. A new bill aims to change that. Retrieved from https://azmirror.com/2026/05/20/arizona-leads-nation-in-child-deaths-by-parents-in-custody-cases-a-new-bill-aims-to-change-that/ ↩︎
2. Arizona House of Representatives. (2026). House Bill 2995: Alec and Lydia Act. Fifty-Seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved from https://www.azleg.gov/ ↩︎
3. Schechter, S. (1982). Women and Male Violence: The Vision and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement. South End Press. ↩︎
4. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press. ↩︎
5. Monckton-Smith, J. (2020). Intimate partner femicide: Using Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219863876 ↩︎
6. Katz, E. (2016). Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, 25(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2422 ↩︎
7. Wakefield, M. (2020). The Global Coercive Control Legislation Index. Narcissistic Abuse Rehab. Updated May 2026. Retrieved from https://www.narcissisticabuserehab.com/coercive-control-legislation-index/ ↩︎

Manya Wakefield

Website |  + postsBio ⮌

Manya Wakefield is a narcissistic abuse recovery coach, coercive trauma specialist, and the developer of the Coercive Trauma Recovery Method™ and TENEL™ (Traumatic Exposure to Narcissism in Early Life) — proprietary recovery frameworks built from seven years of direct professional work with survivors of coercive control, narcissistic abuse, and Adult Children of Narcissists. Both frameworks have been reviewed by Dr. Michael Kinsey, PhD, clinical psychologist, New School for Social Research. She is the founder of Narcissistic Abuse Rehab, a global social impact platform launched in 2019 to support survivors through evidence-based recovery frameworks. Manya is the author of Are You In An Emotionally Abusive Relationship (2019), a resource used in domestic violence recovery groups worldwide. Her original research contributions include the Global Coercive Control Legislation Index (2020) — the first systematic index of its kind on the web — and the Global Femicide Legislation Index (2026), comprehensive legal references used by advocates, legal professionals, and policymakers internationally, cited in peer-reviewed publications including the Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Palgrave Macmillan, and the University of Agder. Her expertise has been featured in Newsweek, Elle, Cosmopolitan, HuffPost, Parade, and YourTango. She hosts the Narcissistic Abuse Rehab Podcast, available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Amazon Music. All content on this site reflects Manya's direct professional experience working with survivors of narcissistic abuse and coercive control, her published research, and her ongoing advocacy work.

• Manya Wakefield

  Toxic Hope: Why You Believe The Narcissist Will Change
• Manya Wakefield

  Global Coercive Control Legislation Index: May 2026 Update
• Manya Wakefield

  Narcissistic Mirroring: Psychology, Signs & Recovery
• Manya Wakefield

  The Discard Phase of Narcissistic Abuse: Recovery Guide