Married Against Their Will: Religious Law and Coercive Control
As a frequent, but often "under the radar" form of domestic abuse, coercive control is behavior in which one spouse obstructs the other spouse's personal liberties through tactics that exert power and manipulative control over the victim and ultimately undermine their autonomy and independence.
August 18, 2023 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Family LawMichelle H. has a civil divorce decree, but cannot remarry or even date within her faith without a religious divorce, which her former husband won't give her. Devorah S. left a physically and emotionally abusive marriage, but her manipulative ex continued to control her life for years by refusing her religious divorce request. Lonna R. says her husband demanded half a million dollars and sole custody of their child in exchange for a religious divorce. She did not comply, and in 2023, is still chained to a marriage that ended in civil courts in 2007.
These three women share ties of faith and religion. But their dire situations may also include another connective thread: coercive control. As a frequent, but often "under the radar" form of domestic abuse, coercive control is behavior in which one spouse obstructs the other spouse's personal liberties through tactics that exert power and manipulative control over the victim and ultimately undermine their autonomy and independence. Coercive control often intersects with other forms of abuse, including physical assault or criminal coercion, in which the abuser uses force or threats to intimidate and control the victim's actions.
|'Get' Refusal as a Form of Coercive Control
Domestic abuse can affect anyone from any background. However, new legal protections for victims of coercive control now pending before the New Jersey Legislature (A1475) may be particularly important for women of the Orthodox Jewish faith abusively trapped in their marriages because their husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Removing a Child From Foster Care to Kinship Care: Expert Bonding Evaluations Are Key
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250