Arizona
Coercive control in Arizona family-law and domestic violence records
Linguistic and behavioral analysis for family-law matters, grounded in the foundational and peer-reviewed literature on coercive control.
Coercive control is a pattern, not a single incident. The pattern is often layered between sophisticated pleasantries to disguise power and control.
Arizona HB 2995, the Alec and Lydia Act, was signed into law on June 22, 2026, and took effect the same day. Courts and counsel are now asked to recognize and evidence sophisticated patterns.
Carlton Research provides systematic analysis of written communications and interviews, identifying coercive control indicators using definitions drawn from established scholarship. Every finding is tied to a specific citation and documented so the finding can be examined and tested.
Available work
- Linguistic analysis of written, verbal, and digital communications in high-conflict and domestic violence proceedings
- Identification of coercive control dynamics, including digital coercive control across platforms and devices
- Victim credibility, including counterintuitive and low-credibility presentations, and the evidentiary reasons conduct can appear to undermine a legitimate claim
- The effects of domestic violence exposure on children as those effects appear in the record
Arizona HB 2995 articles
Carlton Research has published three analyses of the Alec and Lydia Act, listed by date.
- The Alec and Lydia Act before signing: coercive control in Arizona custody decisions (June 20, 2026)
- Proving coercive control as domestic violence under the new Arizona statute (August 13, 2026)
- How Arizona HB 2995 fits the integration of coercive control into US family law (August 14, 2026)
Approach
Methodology and research instruments are transparent. Behavioral categories are derived from published literature before any case material is reviewed, in order to avoid circularity. Definitions are finalized before they are applied to the case material. The result distinguishes what is mechanically observable in the record from what requires interpretation, and presents both so a reader can weigh each on its own terms.
Analysis does not constitute a clinical, psychological, psychiatric, or diagnostic evaluation, and the analysis is not a custody or parenting-time evaluation or recommendation.
Carisa Carlton, CEO Carlton Research, LLC, Coercive Control Forensic Services
carisa@carltonresearch.com | +1 323-999-1376