10 Examples of Coercive Control under the Alec and Lydia Law – A.R.S. § 25-403.03

The Arizona Legislature enacted the Alec and Lydia Law, A.R.S. § 25-403.03 in 2026, the law determines how claims of domestic violence apply in child custody cases going forward. How this law will be applied is a subject of debate among legal professionals. However, based on the language of the law, below is a breakdown with some hypotheticals to help you better understand how the law works.

 

What changed with the new Alec and Lydia law, A.R.S. § 25-403.03?

Previously, domestic violence required two things: (1) a familial or romantic relationship, and (2) the commission of one of the crimes listed in A.R.S. § 13-3601 (these included things like murder, assault, trespass, stalking, kidnapping, harassment, and threatening and intimidating behavior). This law expands that definition. Now, domestic violence can be shown through a pattern of coercive control. The use of the word “pattern” suggests that more than one incident needs to be involved.

What counts as domestic violence in a custody matter is critical because, “If the court determines that a parent has committed domestic violence, there is a mandatory rebuttable presumption that an award of legal decision-making or parenting time to that parent is contrary to the child’s best interests.” A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D).

 

Under the new A.R.S. § 25-403.03, what can be considered a pattern of coercive control?

The examples below illustrate incidents that would count toward a pattern of coercive control.

 

Example #1 – After an intense argument, Alex gets his gun and cleans it while making eye contact with the other parent.

This would count toward a pattern of coercive control.

The Rule: A.R.S. § 25-403.03(M)(1)(c) lists the following as an act of coercive control: “Displaying, accessing, assembling or cleaning a firearm or other dangerous weapon in the other parent’s presence, if the circumstances imply that weapon’s threatened use in violation of state or federal law.”

State 48 Attorney Says: More than that, it likely would also be considered as criminal domestic violence and would qualify as domestic violence under A.R.S. § 13-3601. See A.R.S. § 13-3601(A) (listing A.R.S. § 13-1202 [threatening or intimidating] as one of the predicate domestic violence cases); A.R.S. §13-12-1202(A)(1) (making it a crime to threaten or intimidate, by conduct, to cause physical injury to another person).

 

Example #2 – Mark forbids Carla from speaking with any of her family and friends.

This would count toward a pattern of coercive control.

The Rule: It is an act of coercive control to isolate a person from their family and friends. A.R.S. § 25-403.03(M)(1)(e).

State 48 Attorney Says: The academics who study domestic violence have long identified social isolation as one of the key indicators of domestic violence, as it allows the abuser to create and maintain control over their victim. This update to the statute matches that understanding.

  

Example #3 – Tracy monitors all of Chris’s financial transactions and controls how much he spends.

This is an act of coercive control.

*However, if Tracy’s purpose is simply to keep up on the parties’ finances to ensure the bills are being paid and it’s done at Chris’s request because he is irresponsible with money, that would not be an act of coercive control.

The Rule: A.R.S. § 25-403.03(M)(1)(f) lists, “Monitoring or regulating financial activity, economic resources or access to services” as a form of coercive control. But to count as coercive control, the action must be done without the other parent’s consent or without justification. AR.S. § 25-403.03(M)(1).

State 48 Attorney Says: This is another update that matches what academics have long considered to be a key aspect of domestic violence—financial control. For people escaping domestic violence, having a financial safety plan is an important part of their safety plan. It is common for abusers to deprive the person their victim of access to economic means to escape. If this is your situation, you would be well-advised to discuss with a domestic violence counselor how to remove yourself from that situation.

Some critics of the new bill have singled out this provision as a flaw in the statute. They argue that under this definition, a couple just discussing finances or a spouse looking at and paying the other spouse’s credit card bill would qualify as domestic violence. This appears to be a misreading of the new law, as the very definition of coercive control requires that the acts being performed must lack consent or justification. Certainly, paying a spouse’s bill or discussing finances with a spouse would have likely have consent or justification.

 

Example #4 – Georgia places a GPS monitor on John’s motorcycle without his knowledge to monitor his movements.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: A.R.S. § 25-403.03(M)(1)(o): “Using surveillance or tracking technology to facilitate or aggravate any of the behaviors listed in this paragraph.”

State 48 Attorney Says: Unfortunately, secret location tracking occurs more than you think. Many spouses/partners have attached a GPS monitoring device to a vehicle or is monitoring electronic activity through their phone. GPS monitoring of the other parent is illegal and should not be done without consent. It is also likely a felony. See A.R.S. § 13-2923(D)(1)(ii) (listing GPS and other electronic monitors as fitting a course of conduct that can qualify as stalking).

 We recommend in a divorce where parties have previously shared a phone plan or other plans involving electronic devices, that each spouse get onto their own plan so that the other spouse will not have access to their devices through the plan. We have even seen a shared Netflix account used by an abuser to reach their former romantic partner. In an abuse situation, one might want to consider getting new devices altogether in case the abusive party has installed monitoring software on their devices.

 

Example #5 – David sues Christina in Court for intentional infliction of emotional distress after Christina is 20 minutes late to an exchange.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: Under the new statute, it is now a form of coercive control to misuse the legal system. This includes not only filing, but threatening to file, baseless legal actions, including protective orders. The Court will look at whether the person initiating the lawsuit frilled a false of frivolous suit or if they are using it to “[r]egulate or restrict the other parents’ lawful or constitutionally protected activity.” A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(k).

State 48 Attorney Says: This is another instance where the law is catching up to something that academics and legal professionals have long known—abusers will misuse the legal system to perpetuate their abuse.

 

Example #6 – Craig threatens to post intimate photos of Linda on social media.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: It is considered to be coercive control to threaten “to publish sensitive information.” A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(i). This includes sexually explicit material.

State 48 Attorney Says: It is a crime to intentionally post a nude photo of another person with the intent to harass or harm that person. See A.R.S. § 13-1425. The posting of such an image has long been considered an act of domestic violence. See A.R.S. § 13-3601.  This law now includes the threat of doing so as an act of coercive control.

 

Example #7 – In addition to threatening to post the intimate photos of Linda, Craig threatens to post on social media “proof” that Linda’s mom had an affair that resulted in the birth of Linda’s sister.

 This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: The same law about threatening to publish sensitive information about the other parent applies to similar threats made against their families. A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(i).

 State 48 Attorney Says: When going through a child custody case, everyone involved would be well advised to refrain from commenting about the case, the other parent, or their family on social media. Remember: The information threatened to be disclosed need not be sexual in nature; it might be just something that is sensitive.

  

Example #8 – Alyssa finds out Miguel’s mother is applying to immigrate to the United States and has sent the paperwork to Miguel to file. Alyssa shreds the paperwork.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: It is coercive control to jeopardize the immigration status of the other parent or a member of their family. A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(i).

State 48 Attorney Says: We recognize that immigration is a white-hot topic of debate in the country at the moment, and our explanation here is not meant to take a position on that issue. Rather, it is to explain what the Legislature has done here—and that is, the Legislature has identified a concern that many undocumented individuals—or relatives of undocumented individuals—are at risk for abuse. This law recognizes that abusers use the undocumented status of the victim or family members to exert control over them. This can include threatening to report them, destroying immigration or citizenship paperwork, preventing them from learning English, isolating them from the community, or threatening to remove their children.

 

Example #9 – Elizabeth destroys a family heirloom belonging to Hank’s cousin.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: It is an act of coercive control to damage property belonging to the other person or a member of their family. A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(l).

State 48 Attorney Says: Damaging property has long been considered an act of domestic violence, i.e., if during a fight one parent punches a hole in the wall, that is considered to be DV. The rule now extends that application, finding damage to property belonging to the other parent’s relatives to be an act of coercive control.

As this and the last two examples show, abusers sometimes attempt to control their victims by threatening to attack their families in various ways, whether it is exposing familial secrets or attempting to get a family member deported or damaging what is important to them. This essentially vicarious domestic violence, and the new law recognizes it as such.

 

Example #10 – Jeff repeatedly demeans Helena by calling her stupid.

This is an act of coercive control.

The Rule: “Demeaning, degrading or humiliating words or actions” is considered coercive control. A.R.S § 25-403.03(M)(1)(h).

State 48 Attorney Says: This addition puts verbal abuse within the category of coercive control. But this language encompasses more than just verbal abuse, it can also include actions that are meant to humiliate the other parent.