Oh No! New Coercive Control Law "Contorted" against Mom

How Laws Made to Protect Women Can Harm Them

Sep 03, 2023

A Connecticut judge just granted a Restraining Order to an abusive father that prohibits a loving mother from having any contact at all with her three children.

That should shock no woman who has ever stepped foot in a family court—or known anyone who has.

But there was a twist in this case. The judge contorted the newly expanded domestic violence law, which now includes coercive control, to use against Karen. He issued the Restraining Order [RO] on the grounds that she was using coercive control on the children by causing them to disclose abuse by the father. Terms already used for this include: coaching, brainwashing, alienating, manipulating, etc.

Activists have been fighting the use of parental alienation claiming it is not scientific or legal. Now they have something that is scientific and legal that describes the same behavior. Was this the plan? Will coercive control turn out to be the most difficult for women to defend against?

The new coercive control law, passed in Connecticut in 2021, was, of course, not meant for that. It is defined as a form of domestic violence in which an abuser uses a pattern of abusive behavior to dominate their partner and limit their partner's freedom. It was meant to restrain and hold accountable (mostly) husbands who were using non-physical means to intimidate, control and punish (mostly) wives.

The Connecticut law was named after Jennifer, a mother of 5, who was murdered after she was denied an RO against her ex since the abuse had not yet escalated to physical. She had begged for protection for herself and her kids, detailing her ex’s history of “controlling, volatile, and delusional behavior”.

I am terrified for my family's safety…We are all terrified to disobey my husband. I know that filing for divorce and filing this motion will enrage him. I know he will retaliate by trying to harm me in some way.

Jennifer went missing shortly after the RO was denied. Her blood was found in various places around the house but her remains were never recovered.

A campaign was launched for a domestic violence law that would encompass coercive control. Jennifer’s Law was passed to much fanfare in 2021, with Connecticut being the third state, behind Hawaii and California, to officially legislate coercive control; and there are many states and countries that have or will pass similar laws.

There’s been much hope in the protective mother community that these new laws will help women be able to protect themselves and their children from fathers they know are dangerous yet the abuse hasn’t escalated to physical. Unfortunately, these laws haven’t seemed to make much of a difference, and Karen’s case demonstrates how it can be used wrongly against mothers, ironically, aiding fathers in continuing actual coercive control of both mothers and children.

Seems there is no end to the ways judges can spuriously place blame on mothers and reprehensively empower abusive fathers. Coercive control is just the latest in a long list of things judges can use to justify switching custody and, ironically, aid fathers in alienating the kids from their mother—a form of coercive control.

Since it’s confusing as to how coercive control relates to parental alienation and fits into the overall scheme of post-separation abuse, here is a Venn to help clear it up (not quantitative, just qualitative: showing relationships and overlapping).

Karen’s story shows how DV and child protection laws not only don’t help, they can hurt.

KAREN’S STORY

Karen and her husband adopted three children—twins Mia and Matthew, and then Sawyer three years later. Karen forewent her career as a special education teacher to be a stay-at-home mom to the kids. The father did not do much parenting and was frequently absent due to his job.

Eventually the kids disclosed abuse by their father: physical, emotional and sexual. A divorce was initiated, and in 2020, when the kids were 13, 13, and 10, Family Court Judge Jane Grossman found Karen had coached the kids to lie about abuse in order to alienate them from the father.

There was zero evidence to support her finding and much evidence to refute it. However, true to the family court agenda to keep men empowered in the family, Judge Grossman ignored the children’s disclosures and other supporting facts and evidence and switched custody to the father. And, of course, she allowed him to keep the children away from Karen completely. No supervised visits, no phone calls, nada.

Sound familiar? The systemic silencing and punishing of women who try and protect their children from fathers is ubiquitous.

KIDS RUN TO MOM

In April of this year, the three children, now 16, 16, and 13, had had enough of the father’s abuse and deprivation of their mother and so they ran away, back to her, where they feel safe, loved and cared for—where they always wanted to be.

This is where the story connects with the theme of this column: the misuse of coercive control law.

After the kids ran away and refused to return, the father filed for a Restraining Order. After a sham trial, in which important medical evidence and witnesses were excluded, and the children’s testimony was disallowed, Judge Thomas J. O’Neill granted the father a year-long RO under the new coercive control law. He accepted the father’s false allegation that Karen was causing the children to lie about the father’s abuse and to not want to live with him.

The RO was issued to flush the kids out of their mother’s house and back to the father’s. And it had the bonus bit of oppression of causing Karen to lose her teaching job.

The very strong and determined teens decided to leave their mother’s house so she wouldn’t be arrested. They went to Rhode Island to live with grandparents. This crossing of state lines complicates the legal issue.

The father is claiming Karen caused the children to go to RI, which fits in with the the judge’s use of coercive control, so another way to wrongly use the new law. He filed a motion for contempt on the basis that Karen violated the RO by causing the children to go to RI. If found guilty of contempt, Karen could join the masses of mothers who’ve been imprisoned after trying to protect children from abusive fathers.

Karen responded by requesting an emergency stay of the RO, which rests on various Constitutional violations. She wants a stay while the case is reviewed, which would allow her kids to return to her and her to return to work, but ultimately wants it dismissed entirely.

The RO motion was heard on Friday but Judge O’Neill did not make a ruling. It is unclear whether it has been continued or the judge is taking it under advisement. The contempt hearing will be on Thursday, September 7th.

And so these cases go on and on and on…often until the children age out of the system. And undoubtedly, the OBN, their purveyors, and the fathers get a kick out of this tormenting of women and children who dared stand up to them.

BIO MOM GETS INVOLVED

Sawyer, the 13 year-old, recently found his bio-mom, Tara, and reached out to her for help. He told her he had been taken away from Karen and was forced to live with his father who was abusing and molesting him. So he ran away.

Sawyer’s message to Tara:

My dad sexually abused me and I can’t tell people or else he’ll take my stuff.

Tara’s message to the father:

You are a conniving, sick person that adopted my son and then started sexually abusing him…Sawyer is a part of my life now, whether you like it or not, and I am going to do everything I possibly can to see that you are punished for all of your wrongdoings.
I don’t care who you are, how much money you have, where you worked before, or even who you know, none of that bullshit matters. All that matters to me is Sawyer Elias. Remember that. Know that. Don’t forget that!

So, the first judge dismissed serious reports of physical and sexual abuse based on alienation and gave sole custody to the father. The new judge found Karen is using coercive control on her children, rather than alienating. This supports that banning parental alienation will make no difference. Judges can always use something else. Not to mention the fact that fathers are truly alienating children in droves from mothers.

IN OTHER RELATED NEWS

TWO CA COERCIVE CONTROL VICTORIES—WELL, SORT OF…

Meanwhile there is celebration over two cases ruled on in August in California involving coercive control. In one, a mother was granted an RO for herself and sole custody of her children; and in the other, an appellate court overturned a judgment denying a mother’s RO.

But (seems there are always buts when it comes to Family Court no matter how good the news appears) the victories ring somewhat hollow.

FAMILY COURT “VICTORY”: On Aug. 10, Santa Clara County Family Court Judge Vanessa Zecher granted a mother a permanent restraining order against her ex for coercive control domestic abuse. She gave the mother sole legal and physical custody.

This case is one of the first cases in the U.S. in which coercive control, in the absence of physical abuse, was deemed sufficient to make a finding of domestic violence. Judge Zecher even came up with a new term that the battered mother community will undoubtedly latch on to: the mother had been emotionally battered.

But the coercive control used on this mother was so far out of the normal, so extreme, that few mothers’ cases would have this much facts and evidence. The husband used “written documents, edicts and pronouncements” to control his wife’s every move, “right down to the way she was supposed to wash the dishes”. The control was characterized as “a denial of free will in almost all aspects of her life”.

So it begs the question: what will be the line? Will the usual means of coercive control make the grade for women or does it have to be excessive? Not to mention, most of the forms of control described in the ruling had already been eliminated through living separately after divorce. Although it will prevent stalking, so that’s a plus.

The most important but: the RO only protects the mother; it does not protect the children. They must visit the abusive father unsupervised even though the coercive control had harmed the children as well and most likely will continue to and even escalate since the mother is no longer an outlet. Judge Zecher is not stupid. She knows this. It is common sense. And the stats show that men who abuse women will most likely abuse the children after separation. But Zecher didn’t dare go so far as to prevent a father from seeing his kids unsupervised.

So what good is it really?

The abusive ex is getting what any father (who’s not the primary bond) should get: traditional, unsupervised visitation. The mother still cannot protect her children, which is the single most important thing to her and to society.

And do you think for a minute that if Mom decides it’s safer to keep the children from the father, the judge will allow it—as they do with fathers who are given sole custody? Not a chance. She would be in jail in the blink of an eye.

APPELLATE “VICTORY”: On August 16th, Hatley v. Southward became the first and only published opinion on case based on coercive control. The mother had appealed the Family Court ruling that denied her a RO based on the fact there was no physical abuse, relying on California’s new coercive control law.

But this is the crazy thing: there was physical and sexual abuse as well as “just” coercive control. That arguably more serious abuse was being disregarded. The judge had simply lied in his ruling, as most do, claiming the denial of the RO was because there was no physical abuse.

Now, Appellate justices are not stupid. They knew the judge did not credit, or even hear evidence of the sexual abuse, but they glossed over it, suggesting maybe the judge would want to look into it in the future.

Instead of reversing the judgment and allowing the RO to stand, they remanded back to the same court, the same judge. Hmmmm do you think that’s going to work?? This is one reason appellate courts are not sufficient to hold judges accountable when they discredit mothers and deprive them of custody and protection.

THE UPSHOT

Judges have been disregarding and concealing evidence of serious physical and sexual abuse despite clears laws against that, so what makes anyone think it will be any different with the new coercive control laws?

Even without specific laws, the overriding doctrine of the best interests of the child covers coercively controlling behaviors and judges already know they are bad for mothers and children. Additionally, there were already laws that protect women from many coercively controlling behaviors, as the Appellate opinion shows with its many citations.

So the upshot is, coercive control laws may help a bit in some cases, and may raise awareness with the public, but they are, unfortunately, unlikely to make any significant difference in the Post-Separation Crisis. Judges will simply do with them what they’ve been doing with all other mother and child protective laws: use them wrongly, blatantly violate them, ignore them completely, and use them to aid in switching custody to fathers.

No, the problem is not the law.

The problem is the near-absolute power that the OBN [Old Boy Network] has bequeathed upon Family Court judges to rule however they damn well please. All the new laws in the world, even those fervidly named after horrifically murdered women and children, will not fix what is wrong with Family Court. A new system is needed, not piecemeal, ineffective reforms.

Join Women’s Coalition International to fight for a new system.

NOTE: Karen’s case also provides a good illustration of the Coalition’s expanded platform, which now includes financial damage and devastation. Karen’s ex was able to take all the marital assets and leave her broke and homeless, after she had devoted her life to raising the children. And the recent RO has caused her to be unable to work in her career as a special education teacher, crippling her financially. [The oppression never seems to end once you step foot in Family Court…]

SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY

Our first Sisters in Solidarity forum last Sunday went very well. Lots of women passionate about exposing the crisis for what it really is and ending it.

The next forum will be on Saturday, September 16th at 1:00pm Pacific, 4pm Eastern; 8pm GMT; 9pm BST. Participants will be admitted from 10 minutes before to 10 minutes after the start time. You must be signed up as a Sister to participate in forums. You can join by filling out this form.

SIS is for women who want to engage in activism to end the crisis. For more info see this previous column.

Sisters in Solidarity are women who understand that the Post-Separation Crisis is caused by systemic male entitlement and is a form of oppression of women and want to join together to expose and fight that.

NOTE: Sister Aides will be contacted individually but also need to attend the forums.

Women's Coalition News & Views

Discussion about this post