Jane* was the breadwinner of the family, but her husband obsessively monitored their finances. Every week, he made her present a ledger of their income and expenses. If something was not to his liking, he would subject Jane to a furious tantrum or days of the silent treatment.
For years, Jane tried to make sense of his behavior.
“Because he didn’t ever hit me with his fists, I tried to rationalize that he wasn’t abusing me.”
Now, under a recent change to Maine law, Jane might now be more clearly considered a victim of coercive control. The term refers to a range of nonphysical tactics that abusers use to alter their victim’s behavior, including stalking, intimidation, and financial abuse. In June, Gov. Mills signed a bill adding the term to Maine’s protection-from-abuse statute.
Rep. Holly Eaton, of Deer Isle, proposed the bill after hearing from a constituent whose close family member had faced years of emotional and psychological abuse.
“Like many survivors, they struggled to navigate a legal system that did not recognize the full extent of the abuse they suffered,” Eaton said in testimony.
Within the past decade, nearly a dozen states have enacted legislation concerning coercive control. In most cases, including in Maine, these laws add the term to the definition of domestic abuse in civil statutes (Hawaii is the only state to criminalize the practice). Outside of the United States, some countries, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, explicitly classify coercive control as a criminal offense.
Some stakeholders, however, warned that change in statute could harm the very people it aims to protect.
In separate testimonies, representatives from the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition and the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued that the legislation was vague and lacked clear criteria for enforcement. Representatives from the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence and Legal Services for Maine Elders expressed concern that the new language could be used against victims as well as abusers.
“There is some risk that abusers may turn the law against the victim, arguing that legitimate efforts by the victim to secure their own safety may somehow be twisted to look like attempts to exercise coercive control over the abuser,” said John Brautingam, testifying on behalf of Legal Services for Maine Elders.
Others saw the addition of explicit language regarding coercion as necessary.
Fifteen women testified in support of the bill on behalf of Finding Our Voices, a nonprofit that supports survivors of domestic abuse. Patrisha McLean, the founder and CEO of Finding Our Voices, described coercive control as “insidious and evil and pervasive,” in her testimony and urged the legislature to follow the lead of other states by codifying protections against the practice.
The original text of the legislation defined coercive control as “a pattern of behavior designed to dominate, isolate, manipulate or exploit a person who is a dating partner or a family or household member.” It also listed several examples of the practice: limiting a person’s access to financial resources, monitoring their movements and communications, isolation, threats, and intimidation, and exploiting vulnerabilities like immigration status or disability.
Members of the Judiciary Committee eventually struck the original text of the bill, resolving instead to add a single word “coercion” to the statute.
Andrea Mancuso, public policy director at the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, pointed out that the aspects of coercive control included in the legislation were already addressed in other parts of Maine’s protection-from-abuse statute.
“From a practical perspective, the current statute has fairly broad eligibility, and it works very well,” said Mancuso in testimony. “It is very rare that, when a survivor describes in detail the behaviors that they have experienced and that they feel the need to get a protection order in response to, that those behaviors don’t, in some way, already fit within the existing statute.”
However, Mancuso also noted that most plaintiffs navigate the protection order process without an attorney. Because the characteristics of coercion are addressed in several different parts of the statute, plaintiffs without legal representation may believe coercion is absent from the statute entirely.
“When survivors look at our current statute, many see the lack of the term ‘coercive control’ as leading to the conclusion that behaviors associated with a pattern of coercive control do not qualify a victim for a protection from abuse order,” she said in her testimony.
Jane came to the same conclusion when she first looked into getting a protection from abuse order against her husband.
“When I looked into getting the , it didn’t have anything about coercion and control, and I just thought that there’s no point in pursuing this, because I know I’m going to get denied,” she said.
McLean, of Finding Our Voices, is grateful that the bill was signed into law. She sees it as a sign of the state making progress on the issue of domestic violence.
“It is good to have the word ‘coercion,’” she said. “It’s validating.”
Peter Lehman, who testified neither for nor against the bill on behalf of the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition was skeptical of the actual impact it would have on protection-from-abuse proceedings.
“It was a feel-good bill,” he said.
Eric Thistle, who testified against the bill on behalf of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was largely satisfied with the amendment.
“I think that we can always be working to tinker with laws to make them better and more accessible for folks needing to use them,” he said. “And to the extent that a lot of these are filed by people without lawyers, getting access to this type of protection is very important.”
*The Monitor is using a pseudonym to protect her identity.
