Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Coercive Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves coercive-control bill to expand domestic-violence protections; language narrowed to require pattern and specific threats
Summary
House Bill 96 would add "coercive control" to Kentucky's domestic-violence framework, allowing earlier protective orders for patterns of psychological and non-physical abuse; the committee adopted a narrowed substitute and reported the bill 17-1, with debate focused on ensuring the law targets patterns of conduct and avoids overbreadth or abuse.
Representative Stephanie Dietz, sponsor of House Bill 96, told the committee the bill would add coercive control to Kentucky's domestic-violence statute so courts can issue protective orders before abuse escalates to physical violence.
"Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that is used by an abuser to dominate their partner through intimidation, isolation, and psychological manipulation," Representative Stephanie Dietz said, describing examples such as surveillance, controlling finances and restricting access to family and services.
Christie Burch, CEO of ION Center, recounted client cases where nonphysical control left victims trapped or isolated. "Every day at ION Center, we work to take the best care of people who've been impacted by intimate partner violence ... and for 27 years, I've been doing this work and seeing the horrible atrocities that survivors of violence face on a daily basis," Burch said.
Committee members pressed sponsors to tighten language to reduce potential for abuse and constitutional challenges. Representative Roberts said the substitute narrowed the measure away from one-off conduct toward "true threats" and required a pattern, eliminating carriage language and adding an intent requirement, and indicated this preserved the bill from a likely facial constitutional challenge.
Representative Maddox questioned whether the statute, as written, could subject individuals who merely carry a firearm (without brandishing or threatening) to action; sponsors clarified section language was amended. "It looks like it was, section c ... changed to threatening to use any weapon that appears capable of producing bodily harm ... in a manner under circumstances and at a time and place that manifests an intent to intimidate," the chair noted.
Committee action: The committee adopted a substitute and favorably reported HB 96 by roll call: 17 yes, 1 no (Representative Maddox). Chair Elliott announced the tally and reserved floor debate for later.
Key points: Sponsors and advocates emphasized the goal of protecting victims before physical violence occurs; members requested clear definitions and a pattern requirement, and sponsors cited a recent Court of Appeals decision (Hogle v. Hogle) as relevant to judicial treatment.
Next steps: The bill moves to the floor with the committee substitute; members and advocates signaled further drafting and judicial-scope concerns will be monitored before a final vote.
