Introduction

The term “domestic violence” often evokes immediate and visible harm: bruises and broken bones; police reports; perhaps a whispered, frantic call or text to a friend or family member. Yet for many survivors, physical violence is just one aspect of a destructive cycle. Domestic violence frequently begins and ends with control over money, friendship, travel, and the smallest daily choices.

Unlike many nearby states, Idaho does not yet include coercive control or economic abuse when defining domestic violence, even in the civil and family law contexts. However, creative advocates can incorporate coercive control into a civil litigation strategy, strengthening a client’s case and more accurately telling their story.

What Is Coercive Control?

Coercive control shaped survivor Kiesha Preston’s fourteen-year abusive relationship.[1] Initially, she did not recognize her partner’s behavior as abuse because it did not match her understanding of domestic violence. Over time, his controlling behavior escalated into psychological, verbal, and physical abuse, leaving Preston unemployed, without access to funds, and solely responsible for her three children.

Preston’s experience is not unique. She was subjected to both coercive control and a related subset: economic abuse. Coercive control is a systematic pattern of behavior that establishes dominance over another person.[2] Abusers restrict their partner’s autonomy, isolate victims from friends, family, and other support systems, and create barriers that make leaving the relationship extremely difficult.[3] Research shows that abusers who exert coercive control commit more severe, frequent and dangerous physical abuse, compared to abusers who commit other forms of abuse but do not engage in coercive control.[4]

 A quantifiable form of coercive control is financial abuse. Financial or economic abuse is “behavior that is coercive, deceptive, or unreasonably controls or restrains a person’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain economic resources… including restricting access to money, assets, credit, or financial information; unfairly using personal economic resources; or exerting undue influence over financial decisions.”[5] A perpetrator may take out shared credit lines without consent, discourage or prevent a partner from seeking employment, control spending and access to funds, force a victim to turn over their income for the abuser to control, or forbid reasonable spending on necessities such as food and diapers.[6] These strategic tactics go well beyond normal disagreement over finances to create a unequal power dynamic and a cycle of dependency in which the victim is effectively trapped in the relationship.

Idaho in a National Context

Idaho’s statutory scheme does not address financial abuse and coercive control. In contrast, a growing number of other states enable judges and advocates to address coercive controlling behaviors, especially in civil proceedings such as protection orders and family law matters.

Idaho’s legal framework focuses primarily on physical harms of domestic violence. For example, in the civil context, Idaho Code Section 39-6303 defines domestic violence “as the physical injury, sexual abuse, or forced imprisonment, or the threat thereof, of a family or household member.”[7] This notably omits behaviors rooted in power and control, including emotional, psychological, and financial tactics. Currently, Idaho courts may issue civil protection orders in four limited circumstances: domestic violence, stalking, telephone threats, and threats based on race.[8] Each of these circumstances require some element of physical harm or fear thereof, preventing victims from seeking a Civil Protection Order (CPO) where an abuser has not escalated past exercising coercive control.

The Idaho Supreme Court’s Administrative Office has recognized coercive control as an issue. In 2019, it issued a Civil Protection Order Bench Card that lists “coercive control or controlling behavior” as a risk indicator for judges to weigh when evaluating safety and lethality.[9] This direction, though helpful and in line with recommendations from public health research and the federal Violence Against Women Act, carries no statutory authority and does not create enforceable legal rights for survivors.

In recent years, a growing number of other states, across political and party lines, have taken legislative action to recognize coercive control as a component of domestic violence. This reflects a broadening understanding that coercive control is often foundational in an abusive relationship.^[10] Many states, including Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Washington, explicitly recognize coercion^[11] or coercive control^[12] as a form of abuse.[13] Several other states including Montana, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oregon have expanded their civil definition of domestic violence to include behaviors that frequently occur in coercive control.[14] Amid a growing consensus that abuse goes beyond physical harm, other legal systems are adapting to protect victims. Idaho now faces an important choice: to join the growing number of states that acknowledge coercive control and financial abuse, or to allow victims to continue to fall through the cracks.[15]

Coercive Control in Idaho in Idaho Family Law Practice

Even within Idaho’s current statutory scheme, legal advocates alert for signs of coercive control and financial abuse can better support survivors. Evidence regarding coercive control or economic abuse, while not in and of itself grounds for a finding that domestic violence has occurred, can clearly inform and influence other relevant decisions. Coercive control is relevant to whether there is immediate and present danger for purposes of a civil protection order, whether to rebut the presumption of joint custody in a family law matter, or fault finding and the equitable division of assets in a divorce.

1. Civil Protection Orders & Immediate and Present Danger

To obtain a civil protection order, a petitioner must prove that domestic violence as defined in Idaho has occurred and make a “showing that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic violence.”[16] “Immediate and present danger under this section includes, but is not limited to, situations in which the respondent has recently threatened the petitioner with bodily harm or engaged in domestic violence against the petitioner or where there is reasonable cause to believe bodily harm may result.”[17]

When and where in the cycle of domestic violence a victim feels able to leave is not always predictable or aligned with external expectations. Imagine a situation in which physical violence occurred early in a relationship, but the victim did not leave, and later, escalating substance abuse or controlling behavior prompted them to fear physical abuse would recur. From the fact-finder’s perspective, the relationship continued, but the physical and sexual violence didn’t: and so, the judge may question whether there is actually imminent harm. Or, a petitioner seeks a protection order some length of time after the relationship has ended, reporting that the respondent has been using contact over their shared children to engage in coercive control behaviors—but the physical abuse has not recurred, so the court may ask how to find immediate and present danger. Here, advocates can argue that even if physical violence occurred in the less recent past or has only been threatened, the cycle of abuse and coercive control generates reasonable cause to believe bodily harm will occur in the future.[18]

• Child Custody

In Idaho, as in most other states, there is a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is a child’s best interest. Trial courts can consider a broad range of factors when determining best interest.[19] One factor is whether domestic violence occurred in the parental relationship.[20] There is also is a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interest of a child when one parent is found to be “a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”[21] At least two incidents of domestic violence as defined by Idaho Code are required to find that the “habitual perpetrator” definition applies.[22]

In situations in which the “habitual perpetrator” designation is contested, advocates should consider strategically raising evidence of coercive controlling behaviors.  A fact finder might be swayed by evidence that, while “only” two incidents of “less than severe” violence are alleged, there was a pattern of coercive control alongside the physical violence. In such a situation, two instances of violence are not outliers, but as part of a habitual cycle that will continue to escalate.

• Character Assessments, Divorce & Custody, and Coercive Control

Aparty’s general character is relevant to both divorce and child custody cases.[23] If a client describes domestic violence and is comfortable raising the issue in litigation, but the incidents of physical or sexual abuse were limited, an advocate should point to coercive controlling behaviors as a form of intimate partner violence that[KS2] . Attorneys should pay close attention when clients describe feeling constantly monitored or “on edge” in a relationship, changing their behavior to avoid conflict, becoming afraid of asserting independence or making decisions, or becoming isolated from supportive friends or family. In such situations, advocates should gather more information regarding the various signs of coercive control, as described in Table 1: Types and Signs of Coercive Control, andargue that a pattern of such behavior implicates the “character and circumstances of all individuals involved” custody factor or general fault in a divorce.[24]

• Economic Abuse & Divorce

Economic abuse involves one partner controlling, exploiting, or sabotaging the other’s access to money and economic independence. Preliminary signs of financial abuse might be a client who does not know the household income, debts, or account passwords; describes extreme fear or anxiety when asking for or about money; describes being blamed for financial problems despite having little or no control; or who was trapped in an abusive relationship because of money.

            Upon recognizing such signs, an advocate should probe further: was the client prevented from accessing financial information? What happened when the client requested funds for reasonable necessities? Was spending monitored and controlled? Who held assets and debts, and why? These and similar details will demonstrate the harms of financially abusive behavior and why the client therefore deserves a division of assets that reflects or compensates for the financial harm caused by their abuser.

Table 1: Common Examples of Coercive Control Behavior[25]

Dalton Curtis, a 2025 graduate of the University of Idaho College of Law, practices family law in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, advocating for survivors while helping families navigate the changes of family law.

Anya Perret, J.D., M.S.Ed., is the Director of the University of Idaho College of Law’s Family Justice Clinic, which provides holistic representation to low-income survivors of abuse and violence in civil proceedings.

[1]‘He Wanted to Destroy Me Financially’: The Economic Abuse of Domestic Violence Survivors, On Point with Meghna Chakrabarti, (WBUR (Jan. 27, 2025), https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/01/27/economic-abuse-domestic-violence-survivors.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Melissa E. Dichter, Kristie A. Thomas, Paul Crits-Christoph, Shannon N. Ogden & Karin V. Rhodes, Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence: Relationship with Women’s Experience of Violence, Use of Violence, and Danger, 15 BMC Public Health 1 (2018), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6291212/ (last accessed Feb. 13, 2026). In a study of 553 women, those who experienced coercive control reported higher levels of violence and greater danger than survivors of other forms of abuse who were not subjected to coercive control behavior.

[5] 34 U.S.C. § 12291 (Violence Against Women Act), see also Amanda M. Stylianou, Economic Abuse Within Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature, Violence & Victims, 33.3-22 (2018).

[6] Economic Abuse in the Life of Survivors, NCJ No. 301482 (Nat’l Inst. of Justice 2021), https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/economic-abuse-life-survivors.

[7] Idaho Code § 39-6303 (2025). This represents the civil definition of domestic violence; criminal code, which is not the focus of this article, contains different definitions of domestic violence but also does not incorporate coercive control or related behaviors.

[8] Protection Orders, Idaho Court Assistance Office, State of Idaho Judicial Branch (2025), https://courtselfhelp.idaho.gov/Forms/Protection.

[9] Id.; Civil Protection Bench Card (Idaho Supreme Court 2019), https://isc.idaho.gov/dv_courts/CPO_Full_14day7-2021.pdf.

[10] Cathy Bullock, Family Law Newsletter: Coercive Control (Nat’l Org. for Women 2020), https://now.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-NOW-Fam-Law-Newsletter-Coercive-Control-2-2.pdf.

[11] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 33.018 (2024). This statute defines “coercion” as unlawfully compelling another person to act or refrain from action through intimidation, deprivation, or threats, which can include using or threatening violence, destroying property, withholding essential items, or attempted to control another person through fear.

[12] Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.010(9)(b) (2024). This statute defines “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.

[13] Brionna Crawford, Coercive Control Codification Matrix, National Center on Legal Approaches to Prevent Family Violence, 2024 https://bwjp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-CC-Statutory-Matrix-UPDATED-FINAL.pdf. See also, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 33.018 (2024). This statute defines “coercion” as unlawfully compelling another person to act or refrain from action through intimidation, deprivation, or threats, which can include using or threatening violence, destroying property, withholding essential items, or attempted to control another person through fear, and see Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.010(9)(b) (2024). This statute defines “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.

[14] Id., see also, Mont. Code § 45-5-203 (2024). This statute codifies “intimidation,” an offense committed when an individual acts with the purpose of causing another to act, or refrain from action, or they communicate a threat likely to produce fear. In this instance, a threat may include inflicting physical harm, subjecting a person to physical confinement or restraint, or engaging in conduct that would endanger a person’s safety or property.

[15] The Idaho legislature appears open to expanding protections to victims of domestic violence, as evidenced by the passage House Bill 387 in 2024. This bill increases the potential incarceration period for first-time domestic violence offenders, but it did not expand the civil or criminal definitions of abuse. 

[16] Idaho Code § 39-6306(2).

[17] Id.

[18] Id., defining the “reasonable cause to believe” requirement.

[19] Idaho Code §32-717.

[20] Id.

[21] Idaho Code §32-717B(5). Other states have much stronger presumptions against awarding shared custody to parent who was a domestic violence perpetrator during the parent’s relationship, such as Nevada and Delaware. See e.g., Nevada Rev. Statute 125C.0035 (only requiring a finding that one instance of domestic violence occurred to trigger the rebuttal presumption).

[22] Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224, 220 P.3d 580 (2009) (husband who had two prior convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor was not a habitual sexual and domestic offender, so as to require the trial court to presume that awarding joint custody of the parties child was not in the child’s best interests, since there was only allegation on the record of physical or sexual abuse by husband against a family member or the child of someone with whom he had a dating relationship; the Court noted that, “only possible way that [husband] could be a “habitual perpetrator of domestic violence,” as contemplated by I.C. § 32-717B(5), is if there were more than one allegation on the record [of domestic violence as defined by Idaho Code]”).

[23] Idaho Code §32-717(e) (“In an action for divorce the court may, before and after judgment, give such direction for the custody, care and education of the children of the marriage as may seem necessary or proper in the best interests of the children. The court shall consider all relevant factors which may include … [t]he character and circumstances of all individuals involved”).

[24] Id.

[25] From practice. See also Wesenberg, Madison, et al., Coercive Control in the Context of Partner Abuse: Behavioral Markers, Assessment Challenges, and Interview Approaches, Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 10(2) (2025) https://www.journalcswb.ca/index.php/cswb/article/view/424/1250.

 [KS1]This ignores DV in criminal cases. I don’t think you need to include that since it isn’t the point of the article, but it should be clear that 39-6303 isn’t the only statute to address/define DV

 [KS2]This seems to differ from the explanation above. It seems like this section should go before “Child Custody”