Delegate McComas urges recognition of coercive control in protective orders; survivors and advocates testify

Delegate McComas presented House Bill 15‑86 to the House Judiciary Committee on March 13, asking lawmakers to expand Maryland’s protective‑order law to include coercive control and to provide courts with examples to recognize nonphysical patterns of abuse.

"Coercive control robs the victim of their power to make decisions," McComas told the committee, citing California’s statute as a model and noting nine states have already codified coercive‑control language in protective‑order or family law provisions. She told the committee the bill gives judges clearer grounds to grant relief when emotional abuse, isolation, intimidation or economic control leave victims unable to act freely.

The hearing featured detailed survivor testimony. Darlyn McLaughlin, who identified herself as legislative staff to Delegate McComas and a long‑term survivor of coercive control, described 25 years of manipulation, isolation and threats and urged lawmakers to "please offer the amendments" needed to protect victims. Virtual witness Eugenia Malpica and in‑person witness Christa Whittington recounted similar patterns — restricted transportation, controlled finances, and threats involving children and pets — and said existing protective orders can be insufficient because many victims lack visible physical injuries.

Not all testimony supported the bill as written. Laurie Ruth, public policy director at the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, told the committee she opposes HB15‑86 because advocates fear the coercive‑control definition could be used against victims. Ruth recommended a comprehensive review of protective‑order law — citing Washington state's large‑scale review as an example — and asked the committee to work with advocates on precise language and safeguards.

Committee members asked whether the judiciary had already reviewed the proposal and whether coercive‑control language belongs in the protective‑order section versus family‑law or criminal statutes. McComas and witnesses said they were willing to work with the judiciary and advocates on screening mechanisms and amendment language; Laurie Ruth said programs serving survivors have expressed a "genuine fear" of misuse and asked for more time and study.

The Judiciary Committee took testimony and heard questions but did not vote on HB15‑86 during the hearing. Chair Bartlett closed the panel and invited further drafting and collaboration between the sponsor, advocates and the judiciary.

Ending: The committee concluded the HB15‑86 panel with members and witnesses agreeing to continue work on language and to consider amendments; no formal action was taken at the hearing.