Connecticut

What “pattern” means here

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-1(b) (Jennifer's Law) defines coercive control as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person's free will and personal liberty, with a non-exhaustive list including isolation, digital monitoring, economic control, and immigration threats. Not a standalone criminal offense. Pattern is required; a single incident is not the statute.

Statutes

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-1(b)

  Jennifer's Law. Family relations.

• Connecticut coerced-debt provisions (effective 2025)

  Complementary economic-abuse protection.

Expert standard

Confirm the forum's reliability standard (Daubert, Frye, Sargon, or the local equivalent).

What Carlton Research can speak to

Carlton Research can speak to pattern analysis (coercive control breadth, depth, escalation, entrapment, and more). Research is built to the evidentiary rules of the jurisdiction that will hear it. Carlton Research does not recommend parenting time or custody. Research establishes whether a pattern of coercive control is present. Inquire about specific testimony requests or speaking engagements.

Strength: tactic list includes digital and economic control. Limit: judicial discretion; no standalone crime.