|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
After a high-profile bill seeking to criminalize “coercive control” stalled in the South Carolina Senate earlier this year, state lawmakers have returned with a markedly different approach — one that could have far broader consequences for domestic violence cases, divorce proceedings and child custody disputes statewide.
After being pre-filed last week, the bill landed in the Senate judiciary committee.
Senator Stephen Goldfinch of Murrells Inlet, S.C. who sponsored prior coercive-control legislation, is again carrying the proposal. But unlike S. 588 — which would have created a new standalone felony offense — S. 702 takes a more sweeping, structural route: embedding coercive control into multiple sections of South Carolina law at once.
The shift comes amid sustained public attention to coercive control following the death of Mica Francis Miller, a Myrtle Beach worship leader whose case was first reported by FITSNews. Miller’s case has since become a flashpoint in the national conversation about psychological abuse and domestic violence.
***
FROM FELONY TO FRAMEWORK
As FITSNews previously reported, S. 588 was introduced in April 2025 — one year after Mica Miller’s death — and proposed creating a new felony offense punishable by up to ten years in prison. That bill detailed extensive examples of coercive behavior and spelled out admissible evidence for prosecutors – ranging from text messages and financial records to diaries and body-camera footage.
Despite strong advocacy from Miller’s family and supporters, S. 588 was never advanced — a familiar fate for prior coercive control proposals in South Carolina.
S. 702 represents a notable departure from prior proposals. Rather than creating a new felony, the bill rewrites existing statutes to formally recognize coercive control as a form of domestic abuse — with consequences that extend well beyond criminal court.
***
RELATED | BILL SEEKS TO CRIMINALIZE ‘COERCIVE CONTROL’
***
WHAT S. 702 WOULD DO
If enacted, S. 702 would expand South Carolina’s definition of a “household member” to include people who are currently in — or have previously been in — dating relationships. The bill would also statutorily define “coercive control” as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty – and would make coercive control an unlawful act under the state’s domestic violence law.
Beyond the criminal code, the legislation would add coercive control, stalking, and harassment as explicit grounds for divorce – and incorporate coercive control into family court definitions of abuse. This would allow allegations of stalking and harassment to support protective orders.
The bill would further require family court judges to consider coercive control, stalking, and harassment when determining child custody and evaluating a child’s best interests.
The measure would effectively allow allegations of coercive control to influence criminal charges, divorce proceedings, protective orders, and custody determinations — even in the absence of a felony conviction.
***
RELATED | ‘MICA’S LIST’: FAMILY OF MICA MILLER SEEKS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REFORM
***
A RESPONSE TO SYSTEMIC FAILURES
For advocates, the move reflects a growing recognition that abuse often does not begin — or end — with physical violence.
That reality has been underscored by high-profile cases involving Mica Miller and Gabby Petito, which have highlighted how isolation, intimidation, surveillance, financial control and psychological manipulation can escalate long before visible injuries appear.
“Abusers don’t look for strong-willed people they can’t control,” retired South Carolina law enforcement officer and domestic violence expert Brian Bennett previously told FITSNews. “They seek out those they can manipulate, and they refine their tactics over time.”
Miller’s family has echoed that sentiment repeatedly, releasing an exhaustive document known as “Mica’s List” that detailed years of alleged coercive behavior — including isolation, tracking, financial control, manipulation of electronic devices, and alleged sexual and physical abuse — much of which, they argue, fell outside the reach of existing law.
“If Mica was your daughter,” the family asked lawmakers, “where would you send her for help?”
***
RELATED | STRANGLED VOICES: IS SOUTH CAROLINA’S FAILURE TO PASS A LAW COSTING LIVES?
***
A QUIETER — BUT BROADER SHIFT
Critics of coercive control laws have long argued such statutes are difficult to enforce and risk subjectivity — concerns that surfaced in the United Kingdom after similar legislation was adopted in 2015, when early studies found cases challenging to prosecute. S. 702 appears to sidestep some of those criticisms not by narrowing the concept, but by lowering the threshold for when coercive control matters legally.
Unlike the earlier felony proposal, S. 588 — which required prosecutors to prove a repeated pattern causing fear of violence or severe psychological harm — S. 702 allows coercive control allegations to surface in civil and family court proceedings, where standards of proof are lower and consequences, particularly in custody disputes, can be significant. That shift has drawn comparatively little public scrutiny, even as the bill advances with far less debate than its criminal predecessor.
The broader context is hard to ignore. South Carolina continues to lag behind much of the country in recognizing non-physical abuse, and the Palmetto State remains among the most dangerous states in the nation for women.
It also still lacks a standalone felony strangulation law, despite overwhelming evidence linking strangulation to future homicide. Against that backdrop, high-profile cases like Miller’s have underscored how warning signs of abuse are often missed or dismissed until it is too late. Whether S. 702 would meaningfully close those gaps remains an open question.
FITSNews will continue tracking the bill’s progress, as well as investigating the cases and systemic failures that brought the issue to the forefront.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
8 comments
God deliver us from the simps! Is there no end to the mental gymnastics that feminists and the simps who bow to them will create to put more men in jail and ruin more lives? While true abuse and coercive control is bad, most of the women in these situations are there because they choose to be. As with existing CDV laws, these will be used by vindictive women to gain leverage in divorce and custody proceedings, or to punish a man for whatever she may deem him worthy of being punished for. It is bad enough that we have simps like Goldfinch pushing this garbage in the Legislature, but as with almost every new crime the Legislature invents or pulls from thin air, they make it “a felony” and give it up to ten years incarceration as a penalty.
This has the potential to cut both ways, but as with the CDV laws, it will be used most often against men.
Have you ever known anyone who had a spouse or significant other who spent their budget into oblivion on frivolous shit? I can see it now, a spouse or bf/gf/so tries reigning in such frivolous spending for the sake of the household budget, and here we go with a “coercive control” charge; guaranteed to ruin their life for trying to reign in the out-of-control spouse/bf/gf/so because of a few women who seek out and refuse to leave abusive mates. It is painful watching someone you care about in the throes of abject and terminal stupidity as they cling to an abusive relationship, but passing unnecessary laws that will ruin many more lives than it will save is not the answer.
People are bad and many women are axe murderers. But we do need to increase punishments for the. crimes that men and women commit.
It’s like the old state harassing phone call statute. If a person so much as made two hang-up phone calls, they could be facing ten (ten) years in a SC prison. In divorces cases, it was at times used in hotly contested custody cases. Good way to shut out a parent by charging and having them locked up. State lawmakers eventually caught on and went back and amended that old statute. Reduced the maximum incarceration time to thirty (30) days. But not before some people spent years in prison for harassing phone calls.
South Carolina is, and always be, a mess. From vindictive people to judges who do not follow the law,, to even attorneys who intentionally lie with hopes of winning a case, all the changes will never really be for the better as long as we have l these bad people everywhere
I’m sorry. That does not compute. You made a good point about excessive penalties for harassing phone calls and excessive penalties once applied to them and a correction made to that by the Legislature, eventually.
At the end, not sure I get your point, other than society will always have problems, which I agree with.
The first paragraph, I gather you are saying that for whatever reason, we need to increase penalties for (all?) crimes that people commit? Why? Why do we need to ruin more lives with greater penalties for (all?) crimes that people commit? Our government (local, state, Federal) seemingly exists for the sole purpose of pulling people down and keeping them there. Make a mistake and you are branded for life. Get a good job? Yeah, good luck with that! Lose rights and carry the mark of shame until you die? That is not a government that serves the people. It is one that oppresses the people and each new law adds to the chances that any one of us will one day step in a pile of steaming shit our lawmakers left in our path and forever pay the price. If you think living like that is good, why not move to China?
Is it a criminal offense to be sarcastic and make fun of lawmakers, shameless bench warmers, cops who eat to many donuts, and Obama?
Not yet, but give them time…
Their ultimate goal is to make every aspect of life and human endeavor, a felony.
Agree
God is hearing my prayers. This will pass. And I’ll finally be able to FILE FOR DIVORCE and continue paying for the home I’ve been paying for. You can’t file unless one leaves. Abusers (that don’t hit you) won’t leave and you can’t even file divorce. For me and my 4 children and 2 dogs to leave, I’ll have to pay minimum of 2 months for air b n b plus hire an attorney, $6k-$10k JUST TO FILE. Then also pay the mortgage and household expenses until God willing, me and my children can return to their childhood home of 9 years. I have no one to help us with a place to stay. It’s either sink the small savings and resources because the divorce law as it stands prevents a divorce unless you’re able to leave. That’s not ok! And his emotional abuse, coercive control, financial abuse isn’t enough.
They want him gone. I want him gone. He wants control.
God I know you hear me! Me and my children have prayed long and hard for a clear path, I see you moving. Cover us and others with your mercy. Amen.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Financial coercion happened slowly at my home. No one should be able to control another person. It is sad that I wish my husband would just hit me instead of the financial control. I could have filed for divorce years ago.