What Is Coercive Control? The Abuse Washington's Protection Order Law Now Recognizes
If you live with someone who controls where you go, who you see, and what you do, but no one has ever hit you, Washington law may still recognize what you are experiencing as domestic violence. Since a 2022 overhaul of the state's protection order statute, you no longer need a bruise to qualify for protection.
The Shift: Domestic Violence Is No Longer Only Physical
For years, many people assumed a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) required physical violence or the threat of it. That assumption is now outdated. Under Chapter 7.105 RCW, Washington's unified civil protection order law, "domestic violence" expressly includes coercive control as one of its recognized forms, alongside physical harm, assault, sexual conduct, harassment, and stalking, when committed by an intimate partner or a family or household member.
The statute defines the term directly. Under RCW 7.105.010(4)(a), coercive control means a pattern of behavior that is used to cause another to suffer physical, emotional, or psychological harm, and that, in purpose or effect, unreasonably interferes with that person's free will and personal liberty. The law also tells courts how to measure that interference: judges must consider the context and impact of the behavior from the perspective of a similarly situated person, rather than weighing any single act in isolation.
That framing matters. A controlling relationship rarely turns on one dramatic moment. It is built from many smaller acts that, taken together, narrow a person's world. Washington's definition is written to capture exactly that accumulation.
What Coercive Control Looks Like in Practice
The value of the statute is that it does not leave "control" as an abstract idea. RCW 7.105.010(4)(a) lists concrete examples, and they describe patterns many people recognize but never thought of as legally significant. The enumerated examples include:
- Isolating you from friends, relatives, or other sources of support, including your schooling or employment, or otherwise confining or restraining you
- Controlling or monitoring your communications, movements, or finances, including the use of technology to surveil, track, impersonate, or harass you
- Depriving you of basic necessities
- Threatening to harm your children, family members, friends, or pets
- Threatening to contact immigration authorities based on your actual or suspected status
- Threatening to make private information public, such as your sexual orientation, gender identity, or medical information, or threatening to distribute intimate images
- Exerting control over your identity documents
- Driving recklessly with you or your children in the vehicle, or displaying a weapon in a way meant to intimidate you or alarm you for your safety
These are not the outer edges of the law. They are written into the definition itself. If several of them describe your daily life, that is precisely the kind of pattern the statute was designed to address.
The Companion Change: Feared Harm No Longer Has to Be "Imminent"
The 2022 overhaul did something else that quietly expanded who can seek protection. The older framework leaned heavily on the idea of imminent or immediate harm, which left people trapped in long-running controlling situations without a recent flashpoint to point to. The current law does not require that a recent incident have just occurred.
This is significant for anyone living through a slow, grinding pattern rather than a single crisis. A years-long course of monitoring, isolation, and control can support a protection order on its own. You do not have to wait for something to escalate, and you do not have to manufacture an emergency to be taken seriously. The pattern is the point.
Proving a Pattern: What Evidence Helps
Because coercive control is defined as a pattern, the most persuasive cases are built from documentation that shows behavior over time. Helpful evidence often includes text messages and emails, financial records showing controlled or restricted access to money, records of monitoring or surveillance, statements from friends, family, coworkers, or others who witnessed the dynamic, and a dated journal where you record incidents as they happen. No single piece has to prove everything. Together, they show the court the shape of the pattern.
The standard of proof works in a petitioner's favor compared to a criminal case. A DVPO is a civil order, and under RCW 7.105.225 the court must issue one if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you have been subjected to domestic violence. Preponderance means more likely than not, a meaningfully lower bar than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal court.
Washington courts are applying this framework in real cases. In Asbach v. Couto, a decision from Division II of the Court of Appeals filed in 2026 and approved for publication on May 27, 2026, the court upheld protection orders protecting a former wife and her adult son against a family member, built largely on a finding of coercive control, even without a recent physical assault. The conduct at issue included a public YouTube video and surrounding behavior. At the same time, the court clarified that an order cannot sweep so broadly as to restrain constitutionally protected speech, and it sent the broad restriction on posting online content back to the trial court to be narrowed. The decision confirms that a documented pattern of controlling and manipulative behavior can stand on its own as a basis for protection.
If you are exploring this on behalf of a parent, sibling, or adult child rather than yourself, our companion article on protection orders for family members walks through who can file and what the process involves.
An Honest Word: Not Every Difficult Relationship Meets the Standard
It would be a disservice to suggest that every strained or unhappy relationship qualifies. It does not. Courts look for two things together: a genuine pattern of behavior, and interference with your free will and personal liberty that is unreasonable when viewed in context. Ordinary conflict, disagreements about money, or a partner who is simply controlling in frustrating ways may not, by themselves, clear that bar.
The reason to be candid about this is not to discourage you. It is so that you can think clearly about your own situation and so that, if you do come forward, you come forward with realistic expectations and a clear account of the pattern. A qualified attorney can help you assess honestly whether the facts of your life fit what the statute describes, which is often difficult to judge from the inside.
A Note on Safety
If you are in a controlled situation, please take a moment for your digital safety. The person controlling you may have access to your devices, your accounts, or your browsing history, and some monitoring happens through software you cannot see. Consider reviewing this information on a device the other person cannot access, such as a public library computer or a trusted friend's phone, and clearing your browser history when you are done if it is safe to do so.
If you are in immediate danger, call 911. If you want to talk through your situation confidentially, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is available around the clock by phone at 1-800-799-7233, by text (text START to 88788), or by chat at TheHotline.org.
You Do Not Have to Decide Alone
The hardest part of coercive control is often naming it. Once the law gives the experience a name, the path forward becomes clearer. Whether you are weighing your options for yourself or quietly looking into them for someone you love, understanding how Washington defines and proves this conduct is the first step. If you would like to talk through whether your situation may support a protection order, the Law Office of Chad Foster is here to listen and help you understand your rights.
Need help with a protection order or safety matter in King or Snohomish County? Learn about our protection order services, or call 425.785.8679 for a consultation.