A few years ago, my client was testifying when opposing counsel objected as to "relevance." In response to the objection, I stated that my client was eliciting examples of coercive control, which is a form of domestic violence. The court responded "I don't know what that is" and opposing counsel agreed. I was shocked and appalled.
I am a huge advocate for victims of domestic violence ("DV"), having been a victim of DV myself. I estimate that at least 80% of my clients are victims of some form of DV. For the family court to have never even heard of the term "coercive control" was extremely concerning because not all DV is obvious, like a black eye after being hit. Nonetheless, mental and emotional abuse, such as coercive control, can be just as damaging for victims, if not worse. Common tactics involve gaslighting and isolation, in which the victim is led to believe that they caused or deserve the abuse, while simultaneously being cut off from their support system and therefore, are unable to seek help.
I was greatly relieved to learn that as of August 7, 2024 the legislature added coercive control to the definitions section of the best interests of the child statute (C.R.S. § 14-10-124), which now states as follows:
(I.3)(a) "Coercive control" means a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse, that is used to harm, punish, or frighten an individual. "Coercive control" includes a pattern of behavior that takes away the individual's liberty or freedom and strips away the individual's sense of self, including the individual's bodily integrity and human rights. "Coercive control" includes isolating the individual from support, exploiting the individual, depriving the individual of independence, and regulating the individual's everyday behavior. "Coercive control" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(I) Isolating the individual from friends and family;
(II) Monitoring, surveilling, regulating, or controlling the individual's, or the individual's child's or relative's, finances, economic resources, or access to services;
(III) Monitoring, surveilling, regulating, or controlling the individual's, or the individual's child's or relative's, activities, communications, or movements, including through technology;
(IV) Name-calling, degrading, or demeaning the individual, or the individual's child or relative, on a frequent basis;
(V) Threatening to harm or kill the individual or the individual's child or relative, including wearing, accessing, displaying, using, or cleaning a weapon in an intimidating or threatening manner;
(VI) Threatening to commit suicide or otherwise harm one's own person, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or retaliation against the person;
(VII) Threatening to harm or kill an animal with which the individual or the individual's child or relative has an emotional bond;
(VIII) Threatening to publish the individual's, or the individual's child's or relative's, sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material, or make reports to the police or authorities;
(IX) Damaging the individual's, or the individual's child's or relative's, property or household goods;
(X) Threatening the individual, or the individual's child or relative, with deportation or contacting authorities based on perceived or actual immigration status, withholding essential documents required for immigration, or threatening to withdraw or interfere with an active immigration application or process; or
(XI) Forcing the individual, or the individual's child or relative, to take part in criminal activities or child abuse.
The statute now requires that "if the court orders unsupervised parenting time for a parent, and there is any information, including an accusation by a child, that the parent has committed domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse, or if the parent is accused by the child of domestic violence, child abuse, child sexual abuse, child emotional abuse, or coercive control, the court shall make a statement in writing or orally on the proceeding record regarding why unsupervised parenting time for the parent was determined to be in the best interests of the child with paramount consideration given to the child's safety and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child." C.R.S. § 14-10-124(9).
While the Courts still have a long way to go in addressing domestic violence, this is a great step forward for victims in Colorado as now all domestic relations judges will be aware of the elements and potential effects of coercive control.
Comments