Om’s Law and the Political Economy of Coercive Control

Through the enactment of Om’s Law, Utah is formally recognizing the urgent necessity of closing the knowledge gap regarding the true, multifaceted nature of intimate partner and family violence. In the post-#MeToo era, the response to women articulating the reality of men’s violence has been a systematic rollback of bodily autonomy and labor equity.¹ The political climate has shifted so dramatically that discourse once reserved for extremist fringes—such as the revocation of women’s suffrage—has entered the mainstream.² To seek human rights and an end to femicide in 2026 is to be branded “deranged” or “lunatic.” In this landscape, the desire for freedom is treated as a clinical symptom of instability.³

This pathologizing of dissent is a requirement of the system.⁴ An entrenched economy profits from the unpaid domestic labor of women, the trafficking of their bodies, and the strategic erasure of the human rights violations inflicted upon them.⁵ This system remains profitable only as long as its victims remain uncounted—even when the cost of that silence is death.⁶

Contents of this Article

• The Case of Om Moses Gandhi
• The Booming Business of Child Custody
• Legislation as a Diagnostic Tool
• Further Reading
• References

The Case of Om Moses Gandhi

As Leah Moses fought for the safety of her children in Utah, she was met with this exact architecture of erasure. She struggled to articulate the spectrum of coercive and controlling behaviors she was experiencing. ⁷Besides, the court seemed determined to ignore these behaviors.⁸

“I think the definition of ‘coercive control’ might have given me more confidence. To know that I’m not only in a category, but there’s a definition for what I’m experiencing.”

Leah Moses

The court’s failure to recognize this pattern resulted in an irreversible tragedy. On Mother’s Day 2023, during court-ordered parenting time, Leah’s ex-husband, Parth Gandhi, committed filicide—murdering their 16-year-old son, Om Moses Gandhi. Afterward, he turned the gun on himself.

The Booming Business of Child Custody

In the wake of Om’s death, Utah enacted “Om’s Law,” mandating that courts prioritize child safety over parental “reunification.” Now, Leah is advocating for 2026 HB303: Family Court Amendments. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Paul Cutler, would force the judiciary to recognize coercive control as a primary legal factor.

The opposition to such laws is often rooted in the cottage industry of family court. Because financial abuse is a hallmark of coercive control, survivors often enter the courtroom economically depleted. Meanwhile, perpetrators can afford to hire attorneys and evaluators who specialize in so-called “high-conflict” litigation.

“I am increasingly concerned that one attorney can use the same custody evaluator over and over and over. When objectivity threatens the bottom line of court-appointed experts, justice is sold to the highest bidder.

Mike McKell, Senate Majority Assistant Whip

Legislation as a Diagnostic Tool

HB303 introduces critical safeguards: the mandatory disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for evaluators and the requirement that judges consider the parents’ respective financial situations when ordering therapy.

By defining coercive control, the bill aims to fill the knowledge gap that led to Om’s murder. While subject-matter experts like Erin Jemison of the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition warn that abusers may try to weaponize these definitions through the use of D.A.R.V.O. tactics, the alternative—maintaining a system that refuses to name the violence—is no longer an option.

For Leah Moses, these amendments are a refusal to be devalued in patriarchy. They represent a move toward a system where child safety is a mandate, not a secondary consideration.

Further Reading

• The Coercive Control of Children with Dr. Evan Stark
• The Global Coercive Control Legislation Index

How to Cite This Page

Wakefield, Manya. (2025). Om’s Law and the Political Economy of Coercive Control. Narcissistic Abuse Rehab. Retrieved from https://www.narcissisticabuserehab.com/oms-law on [Date].

References

1. Barr, Heather. (2025, May 7). Trump spurs global rollback on the rights of women and girls. Human Rights Watch. ↩︎
2. Manavais, S. (2023, Oct. 6). Incel ideology has entered the mainstream. The New Statesman. ↩︎
3. Taylor, Jessica. (2022, March 10). Sexy But Psycho: How Patriarchy Uses Women’s Trauma Against Them. Constable. ↩︎
4. Learmonth, S., Robson, S., McCurley, C., Hayes,V. (2022, April). The pathologising of women survivors of male violence by family court experts. Women’s Resource Center. ↩︎
5. UN Women. (2025, October. 23). Invisible Yet Indispensable: Why the World Runs on Women’s Unpaid Care Work. UN Commission on the Status of Women. ↩︎
6. Ibid. ↩︎
7. Brown, Sandra. (2023, July 26). How Family Courts Perpetuate The Parental Alienation Industry. Narcissistic Abuse Rehab. ↩︎
8. Knox, Annie. (2026, Feb. 2). Two years after ‘Om’s Law,’ supporters hope to build on family court reform. Utah News Dispatch. ↩︎