The Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon passed out of committee Bill 1475, which requires a court to consider information concerning coercive control in domestic violence proceedings.
All senators on the committee voted in favor of the bill.
From the language of the bill:
Coercive control. As used in this paragraph, “coercive control” means a pattern of behavior against a person protected under this act that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty. “Coercive control” includes, but is not limited to, unreasonably engaging in any of the following:
(a) Isolating the person from friends, relatives, or other sources of support;
(b) Depriving the person of basic necessities;
(c) Controlling, regulating or monitoring the person’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources or access to services;
(d) Compelling the person by force, threat or intimidation, including, but not limited to, threats based on actual or suspected immigration status, to (i) engage in conduct from which such person has a right to abstain, or (ii) abstain from conduct that such person has a right to pursue;
(e) Name-calling, degradation, and demeaning the person frequently;
(f) Threatening to harm or kill the individual or a child or relative of the individual;
(g) Threatening to public information or make reports to the police or to the authorities;
(h) Damaging property or household goods; or
(i) Forcing the person to take part in criminal activity or child abuse.
When one or more of these acts is inflicted by an unemancipated minor upon a person protected under this act, the occurrence shall not constitute “domestic violence,” but may be the basis for the filing of a petition or complaint pursuant to the provisions of section 11 of P.L.1982, c.77 (C.2A:4A-30).
Any pattern of coercive control against a person that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with 3[a person’s free will and personal liberty], threatens, or exploits a person’s liberty, freedom, bodily integrity, or human rights with the court specifically considering evidence of the need for protection from immediate danger or the prevention of further abuse. If the court finds that one or more factors of coercive control are more or less relevant than others, the court shall make specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the reasons why the court reached that conclusion3. Coercive control may include, but 3[is not] shall not be3 limited to:
(a) isolating the person from friends, relatives, transportation, medical care, or other source of support;
(b) depriving the person of basic necessities;
(c) monitoring the person’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services;
(d) compelling the person by force, threat, or intimidation, including, but not limited to, threats based on actual or suspected immigration status;
(e) threatening to make or making baseless reports to the police, courts, the 3[Department] Division3 of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) 3within the Department of Children and Families3, the Board of Social Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or other parties;
2[(f) name-calling, degradation, and demeaning the person frequently;
(g)] (f)2 threatening to harm or kill the individual’s relative or pet; 3[or]3
2[(h)] (g)2 threatening to 2[take the individuals children away] deny or interfere with an individual’s custody or parenting time, other than through enforcement of a valid custody arrangement or court order pursuant to current law including, but not limited to, an order issued pursuant to Title 9 of the Revised Statutes2 3; or
(h) any other factors or circumstances that the court deems relevant or material3.
(Visited 67 times, 71 visits today)
