The Global Coercive Control Legislation Index

Coercive control legislation is law that recognises a pattern of non-physical abuse — including isolation, financial control, surveillance, and psychological manipulation — as a form of domestic violence. These laws move beyond requiring evidence of physical injury, allowing courts to intervene based on a sustained pattern of controlling behaviour. Legislation varies by jurisdiction: some countries have criminalized coercive control as a standalone offence; others have incorporated it into civil frameworks governing protective orders, divorce, and child custody.

In a growing number of countries and US states, yes. England and Wales criminalised it in 2015 under the Serious Crime Act. Scotland followed in 2019 with what many experts describe as the world’s most comprehensive coercive control law. Ireland, Northern Ireland, New South Wales, and Queensland have also enacted criminal offences. In the United States, Hawaii is the only state to have criminalised coercive control as a standalone offence. States including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, Maine, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Vermont have incorporated it into civil and family law — enabling protective orders and influencing custody decisions — without making it a criminal charge.

As of 2026, countries with standalone criminal offences for coercive control include England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland. France criminalised psychological violence within couples as early as 2010. Sweden addresses equivalent conduct through its gross violation of integrity offence. Most European countries have ratified the Istanbul Convention, which obligates signatories to criminalise psychological violence in intimate relationships under Article 33. Canada’s Bill C-332, which would create a federal criminal offense, passed the House of Commons unanimously in June 2024 and is currently before the Senate.

As of April 2026, US states with enacted coercive control legislation include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington. Hawaii is the only state to have criminalised coercive control — all other state laws address it in civil frameworks, primarily protective orders and child custody. Bills are pending in New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia, among others. The USA Today article published April 24, 2026 confirmed the current list of enacted states.

Criminal coercive control laws — such as those in England, Scotland, and Hawaii — allow the state to prosecute an abuser and impose penalties including imprisonment. Civil coercive control laws, which are more common in the United States, do not create a criminal charge but allow survivors to reference coercive control when applying for protective orders, restraining orders, or when contesting child custody arrangements. A breach of a civil protective order can lead to criminal consequences. Most domestic violence advocates support civil approaches as a first step, noting that criminal laws carry risks of misuse and disproportionate impact on marginalised communities.

In jurisdictions with coercive control provisions in family law, judges are required or permitted to consider evidence of coercive control when determining custody arrangements. California’s law creates a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to a parent who has perpetrated coercive control is detrimental to the child’s best interests — placing the burden on the perpetrator to prove otherwise. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, and several other states require courts to factor coercive control into custody deliberations. Coercive control frequently continues post-separation through custody proceedings, a pattern sometimes described as litigation abuse or legal abuse.

Yes, in jurisdictions where coercive control is recognised in civil law. In England and Wales, coercive control is a criminal offence that can form the basis of a Domestic Abuse Protection Order. In US states including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, and others, evidence of coercive control can be presented to a family court to obtain a protective or restraining order even in the absence of physical violence. The standard of proof in civil proceedings — balance of probabilities — is lower than in criminal cases, making civil routes more accessible for many survivors.

Because coercive control is a pattern rather than a single incident, evidence must demonstrate that pattern over time. Useful documentation includes timestamped records of controlling messages or threats, financial records showing economic restriction, screenshots of monitoring or surveillance, medical records reflecting stress-related conditions, witness accounts from people who observed changes in the survivor’s behaviour or social engagement, and a contemporaneous written journal. Courts assess the cumulative impact of the behaviour, not individual acts in isolation. Scotland’s law explicitly treats coercive control as a course of conduct rather than a series of discrete incidents, which advocates regard as a more legally accurate framework.

The Istanbul Convention — formally the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence — is an international treaty that obligates signatory states to criminalise psychological violence in intimate relationships under Article 33. As of 2026, it has been ratified by 37 countries, primarily across Europe. Turkey ratified the Convention and then withdrew from it by presidential decree in March 2021, the only country to have done so. The Convention provides a legal baseline for recognizing non-physical forms of abuse and has been a significant driver of coercive control legislation across Europe.

Several factors have slowed legislative progress. Domestic violence law historically focused on discrete physical incidents because these produced visible evidence — injuries, police reports, medical records. Coercive control leaves no comparable forensic trace. Legal definitions have been difficult to draft with sufficient precision to avoid misuse, and concerns have been raised that broadly written laws could be turned against survivors by abusers skilled at controlling the narrative. There are also well-documented disparities in how these laws are applied across race, immigration status, and gender. Despite these challenges, the momentum has shifted considerably since 2015, driven by research establishing that coercive control is a stronger predictor of intimate partner homicide than physical violence alone.

In many jurisdictions, yes. England and Wales amended the controlling or coercive behaviour offence in 2021 under the Domestic Abuse Act to extend protection beyond relationships where parties were living together — recognising that abuse frequently escalates after separation. Scotland’s 2018 Act and Northern Ireland’s 2021 Act both include post-separation conduct. In the United States, several state laws explicitly cover former intimate partners. Post-separation coercive control often manifests through family court proceedings, child custody disputes, and financial litigation — tactics collectively referred to as legal abuse or litigation abuse.

Scotland’s Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which came into force in April 2019, is widely regarded by legal scholars and advocates as the most comprehensive coercive control law in the world. It creates a single domestic abuse offence that encompasses both physical and psychological abuse — including coercive and controlling behaviour — rather than treating them as separate crimes. It explicitly includes the impact of abuse on children as an aggravating factor. It treats domestic abuse as a course of conduct rather than a series of individual incidents. It carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. Evan Stark, the sociologist who first defined coercive control as a concept, has described it as the gold standard, and it has been referenced as a blueprint by legislators in Australia, Canada, and the United States.