Q: New Hampshire recently changed the law surrounding domestic violence restraining orders. What does this change mean for victims seeking a Domestic Violence Restraining Order?
A: In July, Governor Ayotte signed House Bill 1522 into law. The bill, which took effect immediately, expands the scope of actionable conduct under RSA 173-B, New Hampshire’s domestic violence protective order statute. As of July 2, 2026, New Hampshire now recognizes two additional acts of abuse: the nonconsensual sharing of private sexual images and coercive control.
This change reflects the unfortunate reality that domestic violence can be inflicted without an act of physical violence. Abuse can take the form of a slow, progressive tightening of control by an intimate partner. For example, an abuser may cut off their partner’s access to household funds, secretly track their partner’s location using cellular data, or threaten the safety of the partner’s pets to maintain control and compliance. Under the earlier version of the statute, this type of conduct would be unlikely to justify the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order, unless accompanied by other conduct which could satisfy the elements of other recognized acts of abuse, such as assault or criminal threatening.
The new statutory definition of coercive control recognizes the nebulous ways in which this abuse can manifest. Courts may now consider any act which serves as a manifestation of the abuser’s intent to threaten, intimidate, isolate, or compel compliance, provided that the acts cause the victim reasonable fear for their physical safety. Though the statute provides enumerated examples, such as isolation from friends and family, the list is non-exhaustive. By focusing on the intent of the abuser, the statute addresses the reality that domestic violence does not always manifest in acts of physical violence until it is too late. This change could save lives; the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order also compels the abuser to surrender their firearms, eliminating one of the most common predictors of intimate partner homicide: access to firearms.
Importantly, HB 1522 did not eliminate the requirement that a petitioner show that the defendant poses a credible present threat to their safety. A pattern of controlling behavior without a present threat could not support the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
In practice, this change is likely to matter most in cases where a victim has documented a long pattern of acts which, in isolation, appear to be minor or benign.
With this change, New Hampshire joins a small but growing group of states — including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington — that now recognize coercive control in civil protective order law.