Coercive Control Under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act: What Spouses and Parents Need to Know

Coercive Control Under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act: What Spouses and Parents Need to Know

How a quiet 2021 amendment to Family Code § 6320 has reshaped the definition of domestic violence — and what it means for restraining orders, custody, and divorce litigation in California today.

By Kent Tierney, Managing Attorney  |  Tierney Law Group, P.C.

For most of California’s modern family-law history, a domestic violence restraining order required a finding of physical violence, threats of physical violence, or other readily observable misconduct. Survivors of psychological abuse, financial abuse, and surveillance-based abuse often had no path to protection in family court — and the resulting custody decisions reflected that gap. That changed on January 1, 2021, when Senate Bill 1141 amended Family Code section 6320 to expressly recognize coercive control as conduct that can support a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). Five years on, this single legislative change has become one of the most consequential shifts in California family law in the last decade. If you are involved in a high-conflict marriage, contemplating a divorce, or facing a custody dispute, understanding how coercive control works under California law is essential.

What the Law Says

The DVPA, codified at Family Code section 6200 et seq., authorizes the family court to issue restraining orders to prevent recurrence of domestic violence and to provide for a separation that allows parties to resolve their disputes peacefully. The conduct that can support a DVRO is set out in Family Code section 6320, which permits the court to enjoin a party from, among other things, “disturbing the peace of the other party.”

Before SB 1141, the phrase “disturbing the peace” was interpreted by the courts on a case-by-case basis, and the case law was inconsistent. SB 1141 resolved that ambiguity. Effective January 1, 2021, Family Code section 6320(c) now expressly defines “disturbing the peace” to mean conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party. The statute then provides a non-exhaustive list of examples that the Legislature explicitly identified as falling within the new definition. Those examples include:

• Coercive control, defined as a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty;
• Isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support;
• Depriving the other party of basic necessities;
• Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other party’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services; and
• Compelling the other party by force, threat of force, or intimidation, including threats based on actual or suspected immigration status, to engage in conduct from which the other party has the right to abstain — or to abstain from conduct in which the other party has the right to engage.

The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. Conduct that does not fit neatly into one of the enumerated categories may still constitute coercive control if it fits the statute’s general definition.

What Coercive Control Looks Like in Practice

Coercive control rarely consists of a single dramatic incident. It is, by its nature, a pattern of behavior that emerges over weeks, months, or years and that is often invisible to outsiders — including, in many cases, to the person experiencing it. Some of the conduct now routinely litigated under the new framework includes:

Financial control. Restricting a spouse’s access to bank accounts, credit cards, or household income; requiring the spouse to account for every expenditure; running up debts in the spouse’s name; sabotaging the spouse’s employment; or refusing to share information about household finances. Financial abuse is among the most common forms of coercive control identified by California family-law practitioners since SB 1141 took effect.

Isolation. Restricting or monitoring contact with friends and family, demanding that the spouse cut off relationships, controlling the spouse’s car or phone, moving the family to an unfamiliar location to limit support networks, or insisting on accompanying the spouse to medical or social appointments.

Surveillance and technology-facilitated abuse. Installing tracking software on the spouse’s phone or vehicle; reading texts, emails, or social-media messages without permission; using shared accounts or smart-home devices to monitor location, voice, or activity; weaponizing AirTags, security cameras, or fitness trackers; or using the children’s devices to surveil the other parent.

Reputational and immigration-based threats. Threats to disclose private information; threats to immigration authorities about the spouse’s status; threats to professional licensing boards; threats to disclose information to the spouse’s employer, family, or religious community.

Reproductive and medical control. Restricting access to contraception or medical care; pressuring decisions about pregnancy; controlling prescription medications.

None of this conduct, considered in isolation, would necessarily have supported a DVRO before 2021. Today, taken together and considered as a pattern, it does.

The Custody Consequence: Family Code Section 3044

This is where the practical impact of coercive control becomes profound. Once a court makes a finding that a party has perpetrated domestic violence within the meaning of the DVPA — including coercive control under section 6320(c) — Family Code section 3044 is triggered.

Section 3044 establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint legal or physical custody to the perpetrator is detrimental to the best interest of the child. The presumption can be rebutted, but only by a preponderance of the evidence and only by reference to a statutory list of factors: completion of a batterer’s intervention program, completion of a parenting class, completion of any drug or alcohol counseling, compliance with the terms of any restraining or probation order, no further acts of domestic violence, and several others. The list is exhaustive, and the trial court must address each factor on the record.

In practice, this means that a coercive-control finding under section 6320(c) is now functionally outcome-determinative on custody in a way it was not five years ago. A parent who was previously confident that a custody case would turn on the children’s day-to-day routines, school stability, and the parents’ relative parenting skills may find that the entire analysis is reframed by a DVRO finding rooted in non-physical conduct. Conversely, a parent whose experience of abuse never produced a 911 call or an emergency-room record now has a viable path to protection and, in appropriate cases, to primary custody.

How Courts Are Interpreting the New Standard

California’s Court of Appeal has issued a small but growing body of opinions interpreting section 6320(c), and the doctrine is still developing. Several themes have emerged. First, the trial court is to look at the totality of circumstances rather than evaluate each act in isolation; a series of individually small acts may, in aggregate, constitute coercive control. Second, the conduct must be more than ordinary marital conflict; section 6320(c) is not a vehicle for relitigating disagreements that fall within the normal range of an unhappy marriage. Third, evidence of coercive control will often consist of text messages, financial records, GPS-tracking app logs, household surveillance footage, and similar digital artifacts; building the evidentiary record requires forensic discipline.

The line between coercive control and lawful conduct in a marriage — particularly in long marriages with traditional financial structures or in households where one spouse has voluntarily ceded financial decisions to the other — is genuinely difficult. Counsel on both sides of these matters need to be careful about applying the statute to facts it was not designed to reach, and trial courts are still working through the analysis.

If You Are Experiencing Coercive Control

If you recognize the conduct described above in your own marriage or relationship, the most important first step is to speak with a family-law attorney about your options. A consultation can help you understand whether your situation supports a DVRO petition, what evidence you should preserve, and how the request would interact with any pending or anticipated divorce or custody case. In many situations, careful documentation of the conduct over time — text messages, emails, financial records, location logs, photographs — strengthens an eventual petition.

In any situation involving immediate physical danger, call 911 or contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 immediately.

If You Have Been Accused of Coercive Control

Coercive control allegations have become a more frequent feature of contested divorce and custody cases, and not every allegation is well-founded. If you have received notice of a DVRO petition that includes coercive-control allegations, it is essential to consult counsel quickly. The hearing on a temporary DVRO is typically held within twenty-one days of filing, and the consequences of an order — particularly the section 3044 custody presumption — make this category of litigation significantly more consequential than its surface might suggest. Working with experienced counsel to prepare the response, marshal documentary evidence, and prepare for the evidentiary hearing is critical.

Why This Matters Now

Five years into the SB 1141 era, coercive control has moved from a relatively unfamiliar concept in California family courts to a routine feature of DVRO and custody litigation. The case law continues to develop, and the doctrine will continue to evolve as more cases reach the Court of Appeal. For anyone navigating a high-conflict marriage, contemplating divorce, or facing a custody dispute, understanding how the new framework operates is no longer optional.

How Tierney Law Group Can Help

Tierney Law Group, P.C. represents clients on both sides of California’s domestic-violence restraining-order docket and in the high-conflict divorce and custody matters that often accompany it. Our attorneys have experience evaluating coercive-control allegations under Family Code section 6320(c), preparing the evidentiary record for DVRO hearings, and litigating the related Family Code section 3044 custody presumption. We work with forensic accountants, digital-forensics specialists, and child-custody evaluators where the facts warrant.

If you are facing a domestic-violence, divorce, or custody matter and would like to discuss your options confidentially, please contact our office to schedule an initial consultation.

Tierney Law Group, P.C.  |  5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 390, Pleasanton, California 94588

Tel: (925) 362-3364  |  [email protected]  |  www.tierneylawgrp.com

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Tierney Law Group, P.C. Family law is fact-intensive and case-specific; the application of the principles discussed here will depend on the particular circumstances of your matter. If you are facing a family-law issue, you should consult a qualified California family-law attorney for advice on your specific situation.