Published October 10, 2026
Coercive control has emerged as one of the most significant conceptual shifts in domestic violence law over the past two decades. The late sociologist Evan Stark developed the concept of coercive control, describing it as a type of abuse likened to kidnapping or slavery when compared to more commonly recognized forms of domestic violence. In New Hampshire, Governor Kelly Ayotte signed House Bill 1522 into law on July 2, 2026, enacting it as Chapter 230. The bill, which took effect immediately, expands the scope of actionable conduct under RSA 173-B, New Hampshire’s domestic violence protective order statute, and recognizes two additional acts of abuse: the nonconsensual sharing of private sexual images and coercive control. Understanding how to prove coercive control in a New Hampshire protective order case requires attention to the statute’s text, the evidentiary standard, and the broader research literature on pattern-based abuse.
The Statutory Framework Under RSA 173-B
HB 1522 inserts a new paragraph II-a into RSA 173-B:1, defining “coercive control” as a pattern of conduct that includes, but is not limited to, a manifestation of the defendant’s intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, coerce, control, or compel compliance, which causes the petitioner to reasonably fear for his or her physical safety. The statute enumerates several illustrative acts, including isolating the petitioner from friends, relatives, or other sources of support; depriving the petitioner of basic needs; and controlling, regulating, or monitoring the petitioner’s activities, communications, movements, finances, economic resources, or access to services, including through technological means.
Critically, the statute also amends the definition of “abuse” itself. Under the revised RSA 173-B:1, “abuse” means the commission or attempted commission of one or more enumerated acts by a family or household member or by a current or former sexual or intimate partner, where such conduct constitutes a credible present threat to the petitioner’s safety, and in its analysis of abuse, the court may consider the presence of coercive control as defined in the new paragraph II-a. Courts may now consider any act that serves as a manifestation of the abuser’s intent to threaten, intimidate, isolate, or compel compliance, provided the acts cause the victim reasonable fear for physical safety, and though the statute provides enumerated examples, the list is non-exhaustive.
The Evidentiary Standard and What It Requires
A protective order proceeding under RSA 173-B is a civil matter, and thus the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, a standard that is less demanding than the criminal conviction standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under this standard, a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not (at least 51% likely) that the alleged abuse occurred.
For a coercive control claim under HB 1522, the statutory language creates several elements that the evidence must address. First, the petitioner must demonstrate a “pattern of conduct,” not a single isolated act. Second, the evidence must show the defendant’s intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, coerce, control, or compel compliance. Third, the petitioner must establish that this pattern caused a reasonable fear for physical safety.
The existing text of RSA 173-B already provides that the court may consider evidence of acts, regardless of their proximity in time to the filing of the petition, which, in combination with recent conduct, reflects an ongoing pattern of behavior that reasonably causes or has caused the petitioner to fear for safety or well-being. This provision takes on heightened significance in coercive control cases where the pattern, rather than a single episode, is itself the core of the claim.
Documenting the Pattern
In practice, the change introduced by HB 1522 is likely to matter most in cases where a victim has documented a long pattern of acts which, in isolation, appear to be minor or benign. By focusing on the abuser’s intent, the statute addresses the reality that domestic violence does not always manifest in acts of physical violence until it is too late.
The types of evidence that practitioners and legal commentators identify as relevant in coercive control proceedings across jurisdictions include communications records, financial records showing restriction or withholding, records of monitoring or surveillance, and third-party witness testimony. As the California Law Review has noted in analyzing comparable laws, guidelines for identifying coercive control list a range of possible sources of evidence, including phone records, social media accounts, emails, and testimony from friends, family members, neighbors, work colleagues, bosses, and teachers, to help build a picture of what is going on in an individual’s life and corroborate their allegations of abuse.
Legal practitioners in New Hampshire advise organizing evidence chronologically so the judge can follow the pattern of behavior clearly. Courts require that the acts constitute a credible threat to the petitioner’s safety, either immediately or through an ongoing pattern that reasonably causes fear, and courts may consider past acts if they establish a pattern when combined with recent conduct.
Why This Matters for Petitioner Safety
The research literature underscores why statutory recognition of coercive control is significant. Stark (2007) defined coercion as “the use of force or threats to compel or dispel a particular response” and control as “structural forms of deprivation, exploitation, and command that compel obedience indirectly,” arguing that when the two occur together, the result is a “condition of unfreedom” experienced as entrapment. A study of 1,930 individuals (965 couples) who had separated and were court-ordered to attend mediation found that 25% of women reported coercive control “a lot” or “all the time,” and the presence and nature of coercive control, regardless of whether physical abuse was involved, predicted both perceived and actual risk of violence; 80% of women who reported physically forced sex, escalating violence, or threats to their life after separation were in the group reporting moderate to high coercive control during the marriage but little or no physical violence.
Research also identifies coercive control as a risk factor for intimate partner homicide. As one legal analysis of the New Hampshire law notes, the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order compels the abuser to surrender firearms, eliminating one of the most common predictors of intimate partner homicide: access to firearms.
Broader Legal Context
With the passage of HB 1522, New Hampshire joined a small but growing group of states, including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, that recognize coercive control in civil protective order law. Hawaii became the first state to name coercive control in statute in 2020; California followed the same year, amending its Family Code so coercive control can be entered as evidence in custody decisions and restraining order requests; and in 2021, Connecticut passed Jennifer’s Law.
Each jurisdiction’s approach differs in its definition, its evidentiary requirements, and whether coercive control functions as an independent basis for relief or as a factor for courts to weigh. Under the New Hampshire approach as enacted by HB 1522, coercive control is not listed as a standalone enumerated act of “abuse” in the same way as assault or criminal threatening. Instead, the statute directs that in its analysis of abuse, the court “may consider” the presence of coercive control. The practical significance of this framing, including whether coercive control alone can support issuance of a final protective order or must accompany another enumerated act, remains a question that New Hampshire courts will likely address as case law develops.
Credible Resources
This article is educational content and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals seeking information about protective orders in New Hampshire may consult the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (NHCADSV), which provides direct support, crisis services, and referrals. The National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) offers confidential assistance regardless of jurisdiction. Court forms and procedural information for RSA 173-B filings are available through the New Hampshire Judicial Branch.
Sources
- HB 1522-FN Final Version (Chapter 230), New Hampshire General Court (2026)
- Know the Law: NH Law Recognizes Coercive Control as Abuse, McLane Middleton (August 2026)
- New Laws Strengthen Public Safety, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (July 2026)
- RSA 173-B: Protection of Persons from Domestic Violence, WomensLaw.org
- Rethinking Coercive Control, Stark and Hester, Violence Against Women (2019)
- Coercive Control Legislation: Using the Tort System to Empower Survivors, California Law Review
- What is “Burden of Proof” for Domestic Violence in New Hampshire?, FindLaw
Disclaimer
Coercive control law moves fast. Jurisdictions are actively criminalizing it, amending definitions, and changing the scope of litigation. This article is current as of its date of publication and may not reflect subsequent changes. It is provided for general educational purposes and is not legal advice.