Thread: New California Law Recognizes Coercive Control as Form of Domestic Violence

"Despite California Courts recognizing the concept of coercive control, there was no actual statutory prohibition against this form of domestic abuse. That changed in September 2020 when the Governor of California signed a bill into law clarifying the state’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act that coercive control constitutes a form of domestic abuse.

Specifically, the law amends Section 6320 of the Family Code so that “disturbing the peace of the other party” (which is grounds to obtain a DV Restraining order) includes coercive control. The California legislature unequivocally recognized that actions that result in the destruction of “mental or emotional calm” of a victim is a form of domestic abuse, even when there is no act of physical violence . . . "

Comments: "Ah, Yes. Another California Law open to Judicial interpretation to slam the poor married man at the behest of a vindictive spouse."
"So Newsom is guilty of “coercive control” by imposing the Covid lockdowns. Since this is ongoing, prosecuting him for this would not be ex post facto."
"The idea is that it’s just another law they can use to get people they don’t like. Also, since every parent would be guilty of it at some time they can troll the society and keep their calendars full of new cases, expand the bureaucracy, etc. It’s a win-win for the govt. Who cares about the citizens?"

California was a paradise for the working man 3, even 2 generations ago. In just the last 40 years, it has gone to hell.

Although California has no alimony and non-contested divorces are fairly painless, this latest law should be a warning to California men that marriage is a minefield.

"He made me feel feelings I don't want to feel.....arrest him!"

I really like your idea of applying the coercive control laws against the Governor.


Can you provide a link to this post?

In that case, I'm impervious to California law, I had to do the same thing here in her socialist sister Massachusetts. Trying to ensnare MGTOW is like trying to catch marbles with a fishnet!

Rule #1. Woman, get the fuck away from me!

Rule #2. Stay the fuck away from me!

With these two rules one can legally override California and Massachusetts law, nullifying their totalitarian efforts.

Anything else is juggling dynamite in a fireworks warehouse blaze.

"The term “coercive control” made its way into the mainstream in 2007 as a result of Dr. Evan Stark. He published a report describing coercive control as a pattern through which abusive partners (most oftentimes males) employed a combination of violence, intimidation, isolation, humiliation, and control to victimize their spouses or significant others. When it comes to coercive control, the threat of physical violence is only one dimension within a complex interplay in an abusive relationship. To summarize “coercive control” Dr. Stark declared that it is not just what men do to women, but what men prevent women from doing for themselves . . .
https://www.castrolawoffices.com/new-california-law-recognizes-coercive-control-as-form-of-domestic-violence/

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

California was a paradise for the working man 3, even 2 generations ago. In just the last 40 years, it has gone to hell.

Although California has no alimony and non-contested divorces are fairly painless, this latest law should be a warning to California men that marriage is a minefield.

"He made me feel feelings I don't want to feel.....arrest him!"

I really like your idea of applying the coercive control laws against the Governor.


Can you provide a link to this post?

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Although California has no alimony.....

I'm not a resident of the great leftist state, but I think this is just flat wrong.

See: Kobe Bryant (yes I know he's dead). His wife divorced him and got lifetime alimony, right after the 10 year mark of their marriage.

IIRC, if you're married for 10 years or more, you're subject to lifetime alimony in the great leftist state, unless something has changed that I'm not aware of.

Originally Posted by Faramir

I'm not a resident of the great leftist state, but I think this is just flat wrong.

See: Kobe Bryant (yes I know he's dead). His wife divorced him and got lifetime alimony, right after the 10 year mark of their marriage.

IIRC, if you're married for 10 years or more, you're subject to lifetime alimony in the great leftist state, unless something has changed that I'm not aware of.

California doesn't have alimony.

However, if one of the spouses is incapable of supporting themselves financially - and would therefore become a ward of the state in form of welfare benefits - the more well-off spouse would have to fund the other's 'rehabilitation,' support while the the other spouse got education or training to become self sufficient for 2-3 years.

Looks like it has it to me:
*****************************
In the state of California, a divorced spouse, or an individual going through divorce, may file for spousal support, otherwise known as alimony. When spousal support is applied for, there are many circumstances that are taken into consideration by the court and judge deciding the case.

The ability of each party to maintain the same standard of living that they had over the course of the marriage is one of the main considerations for spousal support. Included within the previous consideration is the marketable skills each of the parties has and the current job market for those skills as well as any education or training needed to maintain or acquire those skills. The extent to which either spouse supported the other’s current or potential earning ability with their own time or by sacrificing the promotion of their own potential earning ability is also heavily considered, this includes things such as helping pay for education of the spouse or other such examples.
The duration of the marriage and the monetary contributions of both parties to the success of the marriage and well being of each other are all factors considered heavily. The ability of the party expected to pay spousal support to afford these payments is another main consideration, clearly, if they are unable to contribute, they may not be required to, but other restrictions or requirements may be made. The assets and property of both parties may be considered during the case, but certain things, often possessions acquired before or separate from the relationship, may not be considered.
Custody of any children, and any child support required between parties of the divorce is another factor in the amount and consideration of spousal support. If the custodian of the children is unable to support themselves due to the children being of an age or condition that it hinders the individual’s ability to support the child, such as if they must remain home to care for the child, it would severely influence the case for alimony to be received by the custodian of said child or children.
In the end, if an agreement cannot be made between the two parties, alimony is awarded at the final judgment of the judge and court deciding the case.

https://www.maritallaws.com/states/california/alimony

The last sentence is the key one, IMO. Left to a (leftist/feminist) judge, alimony is going to be awarded for the woman, at the expense of the man.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

California doesn't have alimony.

However, if one of the spouses is incapable of supporting themselves financially - and would therefore become a ward of the state in form of welfare benefits - the more well-off spouse would have to fund the other's 'rehabilitation,' support while the the other spouse got education or training to become self sufficient for 2-3 years.

Marriage is like mountaineering with a stoppering drunk idiot! Just cut the idea like a rope and drop that sack of potatoes!
When god asks me where my wife is, I'm gonna say, splattered allover the rocks below, I had to cut her loose!

Originally Posted by Faramir

Looks like it has it to me:
*****************************
In the state of California, a divorced spouse, or an individual going through divorce, may file for spousal support, otherwise known as alimony. When spousal support is applied for, there are many circumstances that are taken into consideration by the court and judge deciding the case.

The ability of each party to maintain the same standard of living that they had over the course of the marriage is one of the main considerations for spousal support. Included within the previous consideration is the marketable skills each of the parties has and the current job market for those skills as well as any education or training needed to maintain or acquire those skills. The extent to which either spouse supported the other’s current or potential earning ability with their own time or by sacrificing the promotion of their own potential earning ability is also heavily considered, this includes things such as helping pay for education of the spouse or other such examples.
The duration of the marriage and the monetary contributions of both parties to the success of the marriage and well being of each other are all factors considered heavily. The ability of the party expected to pay spousal support to afford these payments is another main consideration, clearly, if they are unable to contribute, they may not be required to, but other restrictions or requirements may be made. The assets and property of both parties may be considered during the case, but certain things, often possessions acquired before or separate from the relationship, may not be considered.
Custody of any children, and any child support required between parties of the divorce is another factor in the amount and consideration of spousal support. If the custodian of the children is unable to support themselves due to the children being of an age or condition that it hinders the individual’s ability to support the child, such as if they must remain home to care for the child, it would severely influence the case for alimony to be received by the custodian of said child or children.
In the end, if an agreement cannot be made between the two parties, alimony is awarded at the final judgment of the judge and court deciding the case.

https://www.maritallaws.com/states/california/alimony

The last sentence is the key one, IMO. Left to a (leftist/feminist) judge, alimony is going to be awarded for the woman, at the expense of the man.

Just speaking from my own experience as a survivor of a California divorce.

After her second affair with a woman, I refused to pay any more of my ex's student loan, phone, and credit card bills. She said, "Then, I want a divorce."
I said, "Fine, I'll give you one." She wasn't ready for that answer.

California is a "no fault" divorce state (thank you, Governor Ronald Reagan. sarc) so I started researching the state's no-lawyer uncontested divorce.
She objected, thinking she was going to get as much out of it, and brought up Georgia, which was where she was based at the time.
Georgia was a "fault" state. We'd have to give a reason, and I asked her how a Georgia divorce court would view her shenanigans.

So, she assented to the CA approach. But insisted on half of the books I had checked out of the library about the topic to study on her own.
She found an attorney, who filled her head with hopes of getting those "support payments." After all, my brother got divorced in another state and his ex got 3 years of support payments, about $50k a year, to finish her degree.

However, during the marriage, she went from being a part time waitress and a sophomore with lousy grades, to being a college grad with a solid B average, having a job with the airlines, a captain in the reserves, a trained X-ray technician, and certified in 3 foreign languages. Eventually, the attorney said that no judge would believe that she could not support herself, when she was already doing so, and could do so in 4 different career fields.

She had debts, but she did me a real favor. When I stopped paying her credit card bills, she went and got a personal loan to pay them off. That debt was incurred after we separated, so I was not on the hook. Then there was the issue of all the stock she had in her airline. She didn't want to divide that in half with me.

So, she eventually agreed to an amicable non-contested divorce. We each kept our stuff and went on our way. Fortunately, I did not have very much for her to take away from me.

Lesson learned: If you absolutely have to get married, get married with someone with more lose in a divorce.

I wonder if "coercive control" includes making a spouse's life a living hell by relentless nagging?

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

I wonder if "coercive control" includes making a spouse's life a living hell by relentless nagging?

Lemme trim the tassels off your handlebars, "cohesive control", is just adding another tentacle to the octopus of gynocentric powers to restrain and control you like a sock puppet with their hand up your ass! It surrenders your balls under gynocentric injustice's gavel! BANG BANG!

Any kind of realtionshit, even cordial and plutonic, runs the risk of gestapo jackboots kicking in your life's door and seizing everything you own, even taking YOUR LIFE!