Lunch & Learn: Coercive Control = Domestic Violence...Should this be the law?

MN Board of CLE - pending

Description:

Jurisdictions across the United States and worldwide have started incorporating "coercive control" into criminal and child custody laws. However, the outcomes have often fallen short of expectations, and in some instances, they have inadvertently increased the vulnerability of victims, counteracting the intended protective effect. Minnesota's best interest factors in section 518.17 currently define coercive control using the same legal standard as that for Orders for Protection. Unfortunately, this definition is insufficient for capturing the complex dynamics within families that adversely affect children's well-being and development. There are valid concerns about broadening the definition of domestic violence to include coercive control, particularly regarding false allegations and the misuse of these definitions against genuine victims. Join us for this Lunch and Learn session to discuss the impact on the families we work with and to gain a deeper understanding of this complex issue.

Learning Objectives:

1. Participants will be able to articulate the differing perspectives on including coercive control in the MN statute.
2. Participants will be able to define coercive control in comparison to other forms of abuse.
3. Participants will be able to identify new ways of working with their clients when coercive control is a concern.

Matt Yost, JD

Carrie Crockford, LMFT

Deb Link, LMFT

INTRODUCTION - (12:00-12:05

1. What is coercive control?  (DEB) (12:05-12:13)

NCJFCJ Definition- 3 year process (pgs 30-33)

Minnesota Voices-

• AWUM- Asian-American Women- exploiting undocumented persons
• LGBTQIA+ = reproductive rights
• Ways it shows up in families before separation (CARRIE)
• Legal custody becomes part of control

2. Why is this so complex? (DEB)

• Because professionals from different disciplines are in disagreement
• Legislative committee - many professionals don’t have the history and details of the debate at hand

3. Reasons for it? (MATT)      (12:13-12:16)

• The current definition is the OFP standard 518.417- factor 4 links to OFP
• Physical harm & threats
• Impacts on victims and children

4. Reasons against it? (DEB)      (12:16- 12:21)

• Several jurisdictions that pioneered this and put Coercive control language into family law & criminal statutes…. The lanugage was used and twisted by perpetrators against the people it was meant to protect
• Don’t want to take risks and not sure how judicial officers will utilize language
• Creating a “benchbook” for education and purpose of language

5. The legal landscape that victims run into (law vs. practice) (MATT) (12:21- 12:26)

6. How do we help our clients right now?

• Creative lawyering (MATT) (12:26- 12:30)
• Work in collaboration with professionals on the case (CARRIE) (12:30-12:55)
• Educating oneself on the dynamic and how it impacts…
• - Children-
• - Parenting-
• - Individuals-
• - Perpetrators-
• - Education on how the dynamic works

7. AFCC’s hopes  (MATT) (12:55- 12:57)

• Putting language into the law can create more protection (while there is always risks because of the complexity)
• CALL TO ACTION → people to join in the change (CARRIE)

                   - Day at capitol

                   - Get in touch w/ representatives

                   - Reaching out to education & training committee (join us!)

8. Where things stand?  (DEB) (12:57- 1:00)

• It is a standstill

QUESTIONS- (1:00-1:15)