Published September 05, 2026
The Shift from Incident to Pattern
For decades, domestic violence law in most United States jurisdictions centered on discrete physical acts: an assault, a threat, a visible injury. Sociologist Evan Stark argued in his 2007 book, “Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life,” that this incident-based framework obscured the most common and damaging dimension of intimate partner abuse. Stark reframed domestic abuse as a persistent pattern of domination aimed at stripping away a victim’s independence and autonomy. His analysis revealed that domestic violence is not necessarily violent, but rather a pattern of controlling behaviors akin to hostage-taking, and that the field’s routine focus on physical injury had failed to improve outcomes.
Washington State’s legislature chose to integrate that conceptual shift into its civil protection order system rather than its criminal code, a decision that distinguishes the state’s approach from jurisdictions such as England and Wales, where coercive and controlling behavior became a standalone criminal offense under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
The Legislative Foundation
In 2021, the Washington Legislature enacted Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1320 (E2SHB 1320), which established a new chapter of law to govern all types of protection orders, including domestic violence protection orders. HB 1320 was signed into law as Chapter 215, 2021 Laws, with an effective date of July 1, 2022. The legislation aimed at “modernizing, harmonizing, and improving the efficacy and accessibility of laws concerning civil protection orders” and created a single petition form for most types of protection orders.
The companion measure followed one legislative session later. House Bill 1901, sponsored by Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), passed the Washington State House with a bipartisan vote of 70 to 26 and further reformed the protection order system. HB 1901 built on HB 1320 and notably expanded the definition of domestic violence to include coercive control. The bill became Chapter 268, 2022 Laws, with an effective date of July 1, 2022.
How Washington Defines Coercive Control
Under RCW 7.105.010, as amended by HB 1901, the statutory definition of domestic violence in the civil protection order context now lists coercive control alongside physical harm, assault, nonconsensual sexual conduct, unlawful harassment, and stalking. Section 37 of HB 1901 defined coercive control as “a pattern of behavior that is used to cause another to suffer physical, emotional, or psychological harm, and in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.”
Courts are directed to consider the impact of the behavior from the perspective of a similarly situated person to determine if the conduct is unreasonable. Enumerated examples of coercive control include psychological, emotional, financial, and physical abuse; using or displaying firearms in a way that causes fear; and technology-related abuse such as threats, extortion, harassment, or stalking through digital technologies. The statute’s list, however, is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Washington coercive control applies only when the parties share a specified relationship. The law reaches intimate partners, meaning spouses, domestic partners, former spouses or partners, people who share a child, and people in a current or past dating relationship. It also reaches family or household members; if the petitioner does not fit one of those categories, coercive control is not a basis for a domestic violence protection order.
The Civil, Not Criminal, Pathway
A defining feature of Washington coercive control law, as of publication, is that it operates exclusively within the civil protection order framework. Coercive control resides in Washington’s civil protection order law, not the criminal code; lawmakers added it so judges could consider ongoing patterns of control. Because a civil protection order is a civil matter, the petitioner does not have to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence.
That lower threshold carries practical significance. What sets coercive control apart is its focus on the pattern; individual incidents that appear minor on their own can, taken together, match the controlling behavior the civil law describes. At the same time, the lower standard has drawn scrutiny. Some defense attorneys and commentators have raised concerns about due process, noting that DVPO hearings often last 30 minutes or less, with minimal opportunities for respondents to defend themselves.
Early Appellate Interpretation
Although the statute provides a number of examples of coercive control, there have been few appellate cases interpreting it. In an unpublished opinion, a Washington appeals court reviewed a domestic violence protection order granted partly upon a finding of coercive control by a husband. The appeals court concluded the wife’s declaration provided a “classic example of coercive control” and found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding, affirming the coercive control protective order. As a body of published appellate decisions grows, Washington courts will face recurring questions about where the boundary lies between relationship conflict and legally actionable patterns of control, a tension the statute leaves largely to judicial discretion.
Why It Matters
The Washington approach reveals a broader question facing jurisdictions worldwide: whether coercive control is better addressed through criminal sanctions, civil remedies, or both. Stark criticized the criminal justice system’s limited view of domestic abuse as individual episodes of physical violence, arguing that continuous application of controlling tactics constitutes a more pervasive and damaging form of abuse. Buzawa et al. (2017) similarly argued that interventions into abuse of women are ineffective when patterns of coercive control are not taken into consideration as part of intervention and prevention efforts.
The civil protection order coercive control model offers certain advantages: it provides a faster route to safety-related relief such as no-contact provisions and firearms surrender, it operates under a lower evidentiary threshold, and it centers on prevention rather than punishment. A DVPO can direct the respondent to stop contacting or harassing the petitioner, stay away from specific locations, surrender firearms, and comply with other safety terms; unlike criminal cases, a DVPO is preventive, focusing on future protection rather than punishment. At the same time, some scholars and practitioners question whether embedding coercive control solely in civil law limits accountability and whether the evidentiary challenges of proving a “pattern” are sufficiently addressed by judicial training.
The Washington State Gender and Justice Commission has offered Civil Protection Order Forums for judicial officers, and its Domestic and Sexual Violence Committee assembled a training and resource library for judicial officers and court personnel that includes a section on civil protection orders. Those institutional investments reflect the recognition that statutory text alone does not ensure consistent application.
Conclusion
Washington’s decision to recognize coercive control through its civil protection order system rather than the criminal code represents one of the earliest and most detailed legislative experiments in the United States. Whether this approach ultimately proves more protective than criminal models, or whether it will be supplemented by criminal provisions, remains an open question in the national policy discussion. Readers seeking further information may consult the Washington Courts Protection Order portal, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233), or the statutory text of Chapter 7.105 RCW. This article is educational content and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources
- Chapter 7.105 RCW, Washington State Legislature
- HB 1901 Bill Summary, Washington State Legislature, 2022
- Washington State House Democrats, Rep. Goodman press release on HB 1901, February 2022
- Washington State Bar News, “Changes to Civil Protection Orders in HB 1320,” July 2022
- Washington State Protection Orders Glossary, waprotectionorders.org
- LegalAtoms, “What is Coercive Control in Domestic Violence in Washington,” July 2026
- Stark, E. and Hester, M., “Coercive Control: Update and Review,” Violence Against Women, 25(1), 2019
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.