What Is Coercive Control Under Massachusetts 209A Law?

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center | Massachusetts Criminal Defense Since 1995

Since September 18, 2024, a person accused of coercive control in Massachusetts can face a 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order) without any allegation of violence or a threat of violence. The Legislature added coercive control to the definition of abuse in G.L. c. 209A, § 1 as a fourth kind of abuse. The three earlier kinds of abuse are causing or attempting to cause physical harm, placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical harm, and causing another person to engage in sexual relations involuntarily by force, threat or duress.

A plaintiff can obtain a 209A restraining order by proving a pattern of isolation, monitoring, financial control, or similar behavior that meets the statutory definition. This post explains what the statute defines as coercive control, what the plaintiff must prove, what the Appeals Court has decided about the new definition, and what a 209A restraining order based on coercive control means for the defendant.

The Statutory Definition of Coercive Control

G.L. c. 209A, § 1 defines coercive control as either a pattern of behavior or any of three single acts specified in the statute. A pattern of behavior is coercive control when the defendant intended the behavior to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of a family or household member. The behavior must also cause that family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy.

The statute lists nine examples of behavior that can make up a pattern of coercive control. The statute provides that the pattern includes, but is not limited to, the nine examples, so a judge can also find a pattern based on behavior outside the list. The nine examples in the statute are the following.

• isolating the family or household member from friends, relatives or other sources of support
• depriving the family or household member of basic needs
• controlling, regulating or monitoring the family or household member’s activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources or access to services, including through technological means
• compelling the family or household member to abstain from or engage in a specific behavior or activity, including engaging in criminal activity
• threatening to harm a child or relative of the family or household member
• threatening to commit cruelty or abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member
• intentionally damaging property belonging to the family or household member
• threatening to publish sensitive personal information relating to the family or household member, including sexually explicit images
• using repeated court actions that a court has found are not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument

Single Acts That Qualify as Coercive Control

Three kinds of single acts are coercive control without any pattern. The defendant must have intended the act to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance of the family or household member. The act must also have caused that family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy. The statute lists these three single acts.

• harming or attempting to harm a child or relative of the family or household member
• committing or attempting to commit abuse to an animal connected to the family or household member
• publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of the family or household member

For a single act, the plaintiff must prove actual harm, abuse, or publication, or an attempt to commit that harm, abuse, or publication. A threat to harm a child, a threat to abuse an animal, and a threat to publish sensitive information or images are examples of a pattern of behavior. A judge can rely on one of those threats only as part of a pattern of at least three acts.

Publishing or threatening to publish an AI-made sexual image of a family or household member can be coercive control under G.L. c. 209A, § 1. The firm’s page on AI crimes in Massachusetts explains the criminal charges for the same conduct.

The Three Elements of a Pattern of Coercive Control

A plaintiff who seeks a 209A restraining order on a pattern of coercive control must prove three elements. The plaintiff has the burden of proof on each element. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 596 (1995).

A Pattern of Three or More Acts

The first element is a pattern of behavior. The commentary to § 1:00A of the Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (Oct. 2025) states that “to demonstrate a pattern of behavior, the plaintiff must make a showing of three or more acts.” The Appeals Court quoted that commentary in M.A. v. T.D., No. 25-P-559 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 10, 2026).

The Defendant’s Intent

The second element is the defendant’s intent. The same commentary states that each act “must be intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance” of the family or household member. Arguments, jealousy, and hurtful words are common when a relationship ends. Defense counsel can present evidence that the defendant acted out of the ordinary conflict of a failing relationship rather than with an intent to control the plaintiff.

Reasonable Fear or a Reduced Sense of Physical Safety or Autonomy

The third element is the effect of the pattern on the plaintiff. The pattern must cause the plaintiff to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy. The statute requires that the fear be reasonable, so the judge must decide whether the defendant’s conduct justifies the plaintiff’s fear or reduced sense of safety.

In Nan N. v. Rex R., No. 25-P-524 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026), the Appeals Court cited the Guidelines commentary on the third element. The commentary states that a reasonable fear of physical harm, or a reduced sense of physical safety, is a lower standard than the fear of imminent serious physical harm that G.L. c. 209A, § 1(b) requires.

Evidence at a Coercive Control Hearing

To find a pattern, an intent to control, and a reasonable fear or reduced sense of safety, the judge needs evidence of the date, the circumstances, and the effect of each act. At the hearing, defense counsel can cross-examine the plaintiff about the date, the circumstances, and the effect of each act the plaintiff alleges.

The judge often decides whether the plaintiff has proved monitoring, financial control, or isolation based on the parties’ text messages, emails, bank and credit card statements, location data, and calendars. Defense counsel can use the same records to refute the claim. Years of ordinary messages, joint financial decisions, and trips the plaintiff took independently can show that the defendant did not control the plaintiff’s communications, money, or movements.

A party who reads the other party’s phone, tracks the other party’s car, or monitors the other party’s accounts may be engaging in the monitoring that the statute lists as an example of coercive control. Moreover, secretly recording a conversation with the other party is a felony under the Massachusetts wiretap statute, G.L. c. 272, § 99.

The firm’s post on 209A restraining order extension hearings explains the evidence and the burden of proof at the hearing where the judge decides whether to extend the order.

Appeals Court Decisions and the Pending Supreme Judicial Court Case

In V.B. v. B.W.R.T., No. 25-P-1086 (Mass. App. Ct. July 24, 2026), an unpublished decision, the Appeals Court set aside a 209A restraining order based on coercive control. The judge who extended the order after a hearing had found that the defendant threatened to publish sensitive personal information about the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified only that the information was “private” and “sexual in nature.” The Appeals Court held that the vague and conclusory testimony gave the judge no objective evidence that the information was sensitive personal information under the statute.

In the same decision, the Appeals Court stated that, before a judge issues an order based on coercive control, the record must show the specific conduct of the defendant. The record must also show how the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy.

The Supreme Judicial Court has invited briefs from nonparties (amicus briefs) in G.P. v. S.P., No. SJC-13947. The Court asked for briefs on whether the coercive control definition is so vague or so broad that it violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Appeals Court noted the Supreme Judicial Court’s request for amicus briefs in V.B. v. B.W.R.T. and expressed no view on whether the definition is constitutional.

Conduct Before the September 18, 2024 Effective Date

In Nan N. v. Rex R., the husband argued that the judge could not base a finding of coercive control on conduct that occurred before September 18, 2024. The Appeals Court did not decide whether the coercive control definition applies to conduct before September 18, 2024. Instead, the court held that the wife’s reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm supported the extension of the order without any finding of coercive control.

Defense counsel should object at the hearing to any finding of coercive control based on acts in the plaintiff’s alleged pattern that occurred before September 18, 2024. By objecting at the hearing, defense counsel preserves for appeal the argument that the coercive control definition does not apply to conduct before September 18, 2024.

Coercive Control and Criminal Charges

Coercive control is not a crime in Massachusetts. Coercive control is one of four kinds of abuse on which a judge can issue a civil 209A abuse prevention order.

A defendant who violates a 209A restraining order commits a crime under G.L. c. 209A, § 7, whatever kind of abuse the order was based on. The police can arrest a defendant accused of violating the order. A defendant convicted of violating a 209A restraining order can be punished by a fine of up to $5,000, up to two and one half years in a house of correction, or both.

On a conviction for a violation, the judge must also order the defendant to complete a certified intimate partner abuse education program. The same requirement applies when a judge continues the violation case without a finding. The judge can excuse the defendant from the program for good cause that the judge explains in specific written findings. The defendant also does not have to complete the program if the program determines that the defendant is not suitable for intervention.

The Commonwealth can also prosecute some of the conduct that a plaintiff describes as coercive control under other criminal statutes. A threat to commit a crime against a person or property is a separate crime under G.L. c. 275, § 2. A willful and malicious pattern of conduct directed at a specific person is criminal harassment under G.L. c. 265, § 43A when the conduct seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress. Distributing sexually explicit images of a person without that person’s consent can be a crime under the Massachusetts law on nonconsensual intimate images.

Consequences of a 209A Restraining Order Based on Coercive Control

A 209A restraining order based on coercive control is the same abuse prevention order that a judge issues on any other kind of abuse. The judge can order the defendant to stay away from the plaintiff, to have no contact with the plaintiff, and to leave and stay away from a home the parties share.

G.L. c. 209A, § 3B requires a judge who issues a temporary 209A restraining order to suspend the defendant’s license to carry and firearm identification card when the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. The judge must also order the defendant to surrender all firearms and ammunition.

Every 209A restraining order, including an order based on coercive control, is entered in the statewide domestic violence registry that the Commissioner of Probation maintains. The record of the order remains in the registry after the order expires and after a judge sets the order aside. A judge may expunge the record from the registry only if the defendant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff obtained the order through fraud on the court. Fraud on the court means a deliberate scheme to interfere with the judge’s ability to decide the case impartially.

Defense counsel prepares for a coercive control hearing by comparing each act the plaintiff alleges with the three elements, establishing the date of each act, and gathering the records that show what happened. A defendant who also faces a criminal charge can read about the criminal case on the firm’s page on domestic violence defense and in its domestic violence FAQs. Call 617.936.0201 for a free, confidential consultation.

Key Takeaways

• Since September 18, 2024, a Massachusetts judge can issue a 209A abuse prevention order based on coercive control, without evidence of violence or a threat of violence.
• To prove a pattern of coercive control, the plaintiff must show three or more acts, each intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce or compel compliance. The acts must also have caused the plaintiff to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy.
• Only three kinds of single acts are coercive control without a pattern. The defendant must have harmed or attempted to harm the plaintiff’s child or relative, abused or attempted to abuse an animal connected to the plaintiff, or published or attempted to publish sexually explicit images of the plaintiff. The defendant must also have acted with the intent, and caused the effect, that the statute requires.
• In V.B. v. B.W.R.T., the Appeals Court set aside a coercive control order that a judge issued on vague and conclusory testimony.
• Defense counsel should object to any coercive control finding based on conduct before September 18, 2024, because the Appeals Court has not decided whether the definition applies to that earlier conduct.
• Coercive control is not a crime, but a violation of a 209A restraining order based on coercive control is a crime under G.L. c. 209A, § 7.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

• The Appeals Court Vacates a 209A Order Based on Coercive Control: V.B. v. B.W.R.T.
• How to Get a 209A Restraining Order in Massachusetts: The Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Hearing, and the Extension
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Orders (Abuse Prevention Orders): Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• Massachusetts 209A Extension Hearings: Evidence and Burden
• Violation of a 209A Restraining Order (G.L. c. 209A, § 7)
• Expunging a Massachusetts Restraining Order: Removing a 209A or 258E Order from the Registry
• Secret Recordings at a 209A Hearing in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Domestic Violence Law FAQs