The MARIAH Act creates a balanced legal framework to deter knowingly false allegations while safeguarding genuine victims — because compassion and accountability must coexist.
The MARIAH Act does not change how survivors report abuse or seek protective orders. Genuine victims are explicitly protected under every provision.
Knowingly false allegations cost innocent people their homes, children, and careers — with no consequence for the liar. The MARIAH Act changes that.
"Upholding both" isn't just a tagline — the bill text itself contains specific legal protections designed so that no genuine reporter is punished for an unproven allegation.
The following are real, documented statements from researchers, legal professionals, and advocates — not affiliated with the MARIAH Act, but speaking directly to the issues it addresses.
"False accusations are a form of domestic violence — another tool in an abuser's toolbox. They are a way for abusers to further manipulate, control, and maintain power over their partners."
"Many true victims of sexual assault are often disbelieved, but that is because of cases like this and the impact they have on public perceptions."
"Perjury or false accusation was present in 106 cases — 72% of all exonerations examined — making it one of the most prevalent contributing factors to wrongful convictions in America."
"Unfortunately, the DFPS and Child Protective Services can often be used as a weapon. A lot of times we see this in divorce cases. We probably all know of a circumstance where a family was needlessly traumatized because of an anonymous tip that was ultimately found to be false."
"Currently, there are limited ramifications for making false allegations in family court. Judges often dismiss cases they find unfounded rather than pursuing perjury charges or other penalties."
"Official misconduct damages truth-seeking by our criminal justice system and undermines public confidence. It steals years — sometimes decades — from the lives of innocent people. The great majority of wrongful convictions are never discovered, so the scope of the problem is much greater than these numbers show."
"Our studies suggest that false accusations can have severe consequences for the victim's physical and mental health, potentially leading to depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and poor physical health — as well as the victim being arrested, losing custody of their children, losing their job and reputation, and losing time and money fighting legal battles for years."
"Anonymous reporting allows individuals to submit false or frivolous claims of child maltreatment with little risk of accountability."
"When people make false claims of domestic violence, they not only jeopardize their former partner's freedom — they denigrate the millions of men, women, and children who suffer genuine abuse but are all too often unbelieved."
"Those released following wrongful conviction and imprisonment may have significant psychiatric and adjustment difficulties of the kind described in other groups of people who have suffered chronic psychological trauma."
"Any time false accusations are made, it is a disgrace of our legal system. Sadly, some people attempt to use domestic violence laws as a way to gain what they believe is an upper hand in a custody battle or even in a divorce."
"Perjury or false accusation was the most frequent contributor to wrongful convictions."
"Male help-seekers have reported that their complaints concerning their female partners' violence have not always been taken seriously, yet their partner's false accusations have reportedly been given serious weight during the judicial process."
"Any governmental interest in retaining a preponderance standard is slight compared to the protection a heightened standard affords against overreaching protective orders."
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization dedicated to passing the MARIAH Act and reforming Texas family law.
False or malicious allegations — especially in cases involving domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse — can have life-altering consequences. Innocent Texans have lost jobs, homes, reputations, custody of their children, and even their lives due to accusations later proven to be untrue.
At the same time, genuine victims of abuse deserve unwavering belief, protection, and access to justice. The MARIAH Justice Initiative was founded to bridge this gap.
"We are not anti-victim. We are pro-truth. We are pro-justice. We are pro-reform."
To pass the MARIAH Act and establish a balanced legal framework that deters knowingly false allegations while safeguarding genuine victims — ensuring fair treatment for both the accuser and the accused.
A Texas justice system where compassion and accountability coexist, where genuine victims are believed and protected, where innocent people are shielded from weaponized lies, and where public trust in family court is restored.
The MARIAH Justice Initiative is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This means:
We chose this structure deliberately. The MARIAH Act requires legislative action. A 501(c)(4) allows us to lobby legislators directly without spending caps, run issue advocacy campaigns, endorse candidates who commit to supporting the MARIAH Act, and oppose candidates who block reform.
The MARIAH Justice Initiative was founded in 2026 and is committed to full financial transparency as we grow. Once annual filings (Form 990) are available, they will be published here and made accessible upon request. We are also committed to publishing regular impact reports and to maintaining administrative costs well below industry standards. Our goal is for every dollar donated to go directly toward passing the MARIAH Act.
A balanced legal framework for Texas family law.
The MARIAH Act — Mandating Accountability & Responsibility In Allegations of Harm — creates a balanced legal framework to deter knowingly false or malicious allegations while safeguarding genuine victims and ensuring fair treatment for both the accuser and the accused.
A "Knowingly False Allegation" is a statement or report made with:
This does NOT include: mistaken memory, conflicting testimony, uncorroborated claims, or allegations later unproven due to insufficient evidence.
The MARIAH Act establishes a tiered penalty structure across two sections:
Section 5 — Primary Offense (base penalty):
Section 10 — Repeat Offense Escalation:
Falsely accused individuals may sue for compensatory damages including:
Punitive damages available upon proof of malice. Statute of limitations: 2 years from discovery.
No. The MARIAH Act explicitly protects genuine victims. It does not change how survivors report abuse, seek protective orders, or access the justice system. The bill's definition of "knowingly false" requires proof of intent to deceive — something that cannot be applied to mistaken reports, conflicting memories, or cases where evidence is simply insufficient.
In fact, by holding false accusers accountable, the MARIAH Act strengthens credibility for genuine survivors. When the system can distinguish truth from lies, real victims are believed more readily.
"Knowingly false" has a precise legal definition: the person knew the allegation was untrue, intended to deceive law enforcement or the court, and knew their lie would probably cause harm.
Examples that ARE "knowingly false": Fabricating evidence, contradicting sworn statements under oath, admitting privately the allegation was a tactic, coaching a child to make false claims.
Examples that are NOT "knowingly false": A victim whose memory differs from another witness, a good-faith report that cannot be proven, an allegation that is uncorroborated but genuinely believed.
Texas already has perjury laws, but they are rarely applied in family court. The MARIAH Act applies specifically to DV, sexual assault, and child abuse allegations; covers sworn affidavits, police reports, and protective order applications — not just courtroom testimony; and includes civil remedies that perjury statutes do not provide.
No credible research suggests that laws penalizing knowingly false reports discourage genuine victims. Texas child abuse false report laws (Texas Family Code §261.107) have existed for years without reducing legitimate reports. The MARIAH Act's strict intent requirement ensures only deliberate liars face consequences. Good-faith immunity explicitly protects victims who report honestly, even if their case cannot be proven.
These consequences apply only after due process — a hearing, evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal charges.
The MARIAH Act will make victims afraid to report abuse.
Genuine victims are explicitly protected. Only knowingly false allegations — made with intent to deceive — are penalized.
This is just a men's rights bill.
False allegations harm everyone — mothers, fathers, grandparents, same-sex partners. The MARIAH Act protects all innocent people regardless of gender.
Perjury laws already cover this.
Perjury requires proving a material false statement under oath in court. The MARIAH Act covers sworn affidavits and police reports — with civil remedies perjury doesn't provide.
This is anti-victim.
The MARIAH Act was developed with input from survivors who believe accountability strengthens the credibility of all genuine victims.
18 milestones from groundwork to the Governor's signature
Recognizing the pattern. Protecting the victim. Protecting due process.
Texas family-violence law rightly recognizes assault, bodily injury, sexual violence, and threats of imminent harm. But abuse can also take the form of a sustained pattern of intimidation, surveillance, isolation, financial restriction, and compelled compliance — conduct that often surrounds or precedes physical violence, yet falls outside today's definitions.
The Texas Coercive Control Act would add a narrow, conduct-based definition of coercive controlling conduct to the Texas Family Code and create a dedicated civil protective-order remedy for it. It does not create a new crime, and it does not rewrite the state's definition of "family violence."
Texas Family Code §71.004 defines family violence primarily in terms of physical harm, bodily injury, assault, sexual assault, and threats of imminent physical harm. Texas already evaluates courses of conduct in its stalking and protective-order statutes, already defines nonphysical "coercion" in Penal Code §1.07, and already grants protective orders on findings other than family violence through Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 7B. This bill builds on those existing concepts.
Ordinary conflict, subjective distress, and lawful court filings are expressly excluded.
Two or more acts, on separate occasions, done intentionally or knowingly, that substantially interfere with liberty.
Two or more acts on separate occasions. They need not be the same type of act. A single act never qualifies.
The acts must be committed intentionally or knowingly, using the familiar Texas Penal Code meanings, to restrict, compel, intimidate, isolate, or control.
The pattern must substantially and unreasonably interfere with liberty, safety, autonomy, access to essential resources, or a lawful right — not merely "control."
The court weighs the totality of the circumstances and whether the conduct would substantially interfere with the liberty of a reasonable person in that situation.
Seven sections. Rather than amending the definition of "family violence," the bill creates a standalone protective-order pathway, so the Legislature decides deliberately which consequences attach instead of changing them indirectly through a definition. Draft language is subject to attorney and legislative-counsel review.
This Act may be cited as the Texas Coercive Control Act.
Alternate working title under consideration: Texas Coercive Control and Personal Liberty Protection Act. The title intentionally avoids naming any single domestic-violence theory or psychological instrument.
(a) "Coercive controlling conduct" means a pattern of two or more acts occurring on separate occasions, committed by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household, or by an individual against a person with whom the individual has or has had a dating relationship as described by Section 71.0021(b), that, considered together and in context:
(b) Conduct that may form part of a pattern of coercive controlling conduct includes:
(c) For purposes of Subsection (b), a threat may include conduct described by Section 1.07(a)(9), Penal Code, if the threat is made for the purpose of compelling or restricting conduct and the other requirements of this section are satisfied.
(d) In determining whether coercive controlling conduct occurred, the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the conduct would substantially interfere with the liberty or autonomy of a reasonable person under those circumstances.
(e) Coercive controlling conduct does not include:
(f) Subsection (e) does not protect a knowingly false statement, an unlawful threat, the fabrication or destruction of evidence, or conduct that independently satisfies this section and is not reasonably related to obtaining legitimate relief.
(g) The acts constituting the pattern need not be of the same type. A single act does not constitute coercive controlling conduct.
(h) In this section, "intentionally" and "knowingly" have the meanings assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.
(a) A court may render a protective order under Chapter 85 if the court finds, in lieu of the finding required by Section 85.001 that family violence occurred, that the respondent engaged in coercive controlling conduct as defined by Section 71.0031 against the applicant.
(b) An application under this section may be filed by an adult member of the family or household, or by an adult who is or was in a dating relationship with the respondent, and Section 82.002 is amended to conform.
(c) An order rendered under this section is an order rendered under Chapter 85 for purposes of Section 25.07, Penal Code, and Chapter 88 of this code.
(a) In an order rendered under Section 81.010, the court may include any condition described by Section 85.022 that the court finds reasonably necessary to prevent the continuation of coercive controlling conduct, and the court shall state the reason for each condition imposed.
(b) The court may not exclude the respondent from a residence, or restrict the respondent's possession of or access to a child, under an order based solely on coercive controlling conduct unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the condition is necessary to protect the applicant or the child.
(c) Nothing in this section limits relief available on a separate finding of family violence.
(a) Standard. The court may find coercive controlling conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
(b) Duration. An order based solely on coercive controlling conduct may not exceed 12 months unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a longer duration, not to exceed the period authorized by Section 85.025, is necessary to protect the applicant.
(c) Findings. If the court relies in whole or in part on a finding of coercive controlling conduct in rendering relief, the court shall make written findings identifying at least two acts occurring on separate occasions and their approximate dates or time periods, and shall state the facts supporting its findings that:
(a) A court may render a temporary ex parte order in connection with an application under Section 81.010 only as provided by Chapter 83 and this section.
(b) A finding or allegation of coercive controlling conduct alone does not establish the clear and present danger required by Section 83.001. A temporary ex parte order may be rendered only if the application contains specific facts independently establishing a clear and present danger warranting immediate relief.
(a) Applicability. This Act applies to an application filed on or after September 1, 2027. At least one act constituting the alleged pattern must occur on or after that date. Conduct occurring before the effective date may be considered only as context for conduct occurring on or after the effective date.
(b) Data. The Office of Court Administration shall, to the extent practicable using the existing protective order registry under Subchapter F, Chapter 72, Government Code, and existing reporting infrastructure, collect aggregate data identifying protective orders in which a court made a finding under Section 71.0031, including orders granted, denied, or dismissed, whether family violence was also found, and the duration of relief.
(c) Report. Not later than December 1, 2030, the office shall report aggregate, non-identifying data to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the standing committees with jurisdiction over family law, so the Legislature can decide whether to keep, amend, strengthen, or expand this Act based on Texas evidence.
Most coercive-control statutes focus on recognition. This proposal is designed so that a system can recognize coercive control without itself becoming an instrument of coercive control.
Two or more acts on separate occasions. One argument can never qualify.
"Intentionally or knowingly," using Penal Code §6.03 meanings. Accidental or merely unpleasant conduct does not qualify.
"Controls" is not enough. The interference must be substantial and unreasonable.
An objective standard reduces purely subjective claims.
Courts must identify the acts, dates, mental state, pattern, interference, and reasonable-person finding. No vague orders.
Reporting suspected abuse, custody filings, protective-order petitions, and other lawful court conduct are expressly excluded.
No personality tests, labels, or "psychopathy" scores in the statute. Findings rest on what a person did.
Protects women, men, same-sex partners, and unmarried dating partners under one rule.
A civil protective remedy. Violating an order remains a crime exactly as it is today.
A standalone pathway. The Legislature chooses which consequences attach instead of changing them through a definition.
12-month default. Residence exclusion, child restrictions, or longer orders require clear and convincing evidence.
At least one act must occur after the effective date. Earlier conduct is context, not a qualifying act.
Texas is not being asked to copy another state. California, Connecticut, and Vermont share one template drawn from the same model code: a "pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person's free will and personal liberty." Hawaii went its own way and is the only state with a criminal route. The Texas proposal is narrower than all four on every axis below.
| State | Year | Where It Lives | What the Definition Covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | 2021 | Family Code §6320 — civil domestic-violence restraining orders; feeds the §3044 custody presumption | Nested inside "disturbing the peace" (conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other party). Examples: isolation, deprivation of necessities, controlling or monitoring movements, communications, finances, or access to services, compelling conduct by force or threat including immigration threats, reproductive coercion. |
| Connecticut | 2021 | Gen. Stat. §46b-1 "domestic violence," governing all family relations matters including §46b-15 restraining orders and custody ("Jennifer's Law," P.A. 21-78) | Same core template as California, plus animal cruelty and forced sex acts or sexual threats, including threats to release sexual images. Orders capped at one year, extendable. Preponderance standard by case law. Grant program funds legal help for low-income applicants. |
| Vermont | 2024 | 15 V.S.A. §1101 "abuse," governing relief-from-abuse orders and considered in custody (Act 103 / H.27) | "Coercive controlling behavior," word-for-word the Connecticut list. Tied to the NCJFCJ Model Code; built with input from judges, advocates, law enforcement, and defense representatives. |
| Hawaii | 2020 → | Both routes: HRS §586-1 civil protective orders, and HRS §709-906 petty-misdemeanor offense under a pilot (Act 19 of 2020; coercive control added 2021; sunset extended to June 30, 2031 with judiciary reports due 2027–2030) | The broadest definition of the four: "a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions." Examples include frequent name-calling and degradation, damaging property, and "threatening to publish information or make reports to the police or the authorities." Criminal charge requires "intentionally or knowingly." |
| Texas (proposed) | 2027 | Family Code — definition in Ch. 71, standalone protective-order pathway in Ch. 81/85. Custody treatment decided expressly rather than by definitional spillover. | Two or more intentional or knowing acts that substantially and unreasonably interfere with liberty, safety, autonomy, essential resources, or a lawful right. Seven enumerated categories, an express safe harbor for good-faith reporting and lawful court filings, and no reliance on any single treatment model. |
| Element | California · Connecticut · Vermont | Hawaii | Texas Draft |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental state | None. "Purpose or effect" — effect alone is enough. | "Intentionally or knowingly" for the criminal charge; none for civil orders. | Intentionally or knowingly, Penal Code §6.03 meanings. |
| Minimum acts | "Pattern," never defined. | "Pattern," never defined. | Two or more, on separate occasions. A single act never qualifies. |
| Objective test | The single word "unreasonably." | None in the definition. | Reasonable-person finding plus "substantially and unreasonably" interferes. |
| Written findings | Not required. | Not required. | Five enumerated findings plus the acts and dates. |
| Reporting / litigation safe harbor | None. | The reverse: "threatening to make reports to the police" is itself listed as coercive control. | Express safe harbor for good-faith reporting and court filings, with a carve-back for knowingly false statements. |
| Standard of proof | Preponderance. | Preponderance (civil); beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). | Tiered: preponderance for the finding; clear and convincing for orders over 12 months, residence exclusion, or child restrictions. |
| Ex parte relief | Available on the ordinary emergency showing. | Available. | Gated: the allegation alone never suffices; specific facts must independently show a clear and present danger. |
| Duration | CA up to 5 years, renewable. CT 1 year, extendable. VT a fixed period set by the court with no statutory maximum, extendable "for such additional time as it deems necessary." | Set by the court. | 12-month default; longer only on clear and convincing evidence. |
| Reaches custody | Yes, in all three, through each state's abuse definition. | Yes. | Decided expressly by the Legislature, not by definitional spillover. Open item. |
| Firearms | CA: mandatory. Any protective order bars possession and the court "shall order" relinquishment (Fam. Code §6389). CT: conditional. Surrender is required only where the order is "in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force," including ex parte orders (§29-28(b)(6), §53a-217). A coercive-control-only order may not trigger it. VT: ordering surrender is the judge's call, but anyone under a final order "shall not possess a firearm," a state crime (13 V.S.A. §4017a). | Yes. Anyone a court restrains from contacting, threatening, or abusing another may not possess firearms or ammunition while the order lasts, must surrender them within 48 hours, and commits a misdemeanor if not (HRS §134-7(f)). Applies even to ex parte orders. | Open decision. Texas §46.04(c) attaches to Chapter 85 orders; federal §922(g)(8) only if its own requirements are met. |
| New crime | No. | Yes, petty misdemeanor under a pilot through 2031. | No. |
The "purpose or effect" states will reach conduct the Texas draft cannot, wherever a respondent's intent is hard to prove. Texas trades some coverage for defensibility: a statute that survives vagueness and due-process challenges, produces orders that hold up on appeal, and cannot be turned against the person reporting abuse. That choice is deliberate. Reviewers who believe the balance is wrong are asked to say which safeguard they would remove and why.
All four states' statutes are gender-neutral on their face, as is the Texas draft. Gender neutrality is a MARIAH principle, not a point of difference. Florida has also recognized a power-and-control model in batterer-intervention programming without adopting any single theory as substantive law.
One bad argument could get someone labeled an abuser.
The statute requires two or more acts on separate occasions, committed intentionally or knowingly. A single act never qualifies.
This quietly rewrites "family violence" across the entire Texas code.
It does not touch the §71.004 definition. It creates a standalone protective-order pathway, so the Legislature decides which consequences attach.
Courts will start diagnosing people as "narcissists" or "psychopaths."
No personality instrument or diagnosis appears in the bill. Findings rest on specific conduct. Expert testimony remains governed by existing Texas evidence rules.
Calling the police or filing for custody could count against you.
Good-faith reporting, custody suits, protective-order petitions, and other lawful court conduct are expressly excluded. Only knowingly false statements, unlawful threats, or fabricated evidence lose that protection.
This is just Texas copying California.
The Texas proposal is narrower than California's and adds safeguards — a culpable mental state, a reasonable-person test, enumerated findings, proportional remedies, and a 12-month default — that most states omit.
It's a bill about bad relationships, not abuse.
One act, annoyance, ordinary disagreement, and subjective distress are all insufficient. Interference must be substantial and unreasonable, judged objectively, with a culpable mental state and specific written findings.
They are two sides of the same principle. The MARIAH Act holds knowingly false allegations accountable while protecting genuine victims. The Texas Coercive Control Act ensures the real patterns of abuse that current law misses can be recognized — with the same due-process discipline, including a tiered standard of proof that matches the MARIAH Act's clear-and-convincing requirement for longer orders. Both reflect the MARIAH Justice Initiative's position that a justice system must protect victims and the accused simultaneously.
Because dozens of Texas statutes incorporate the §71.004 definition, and each carries its own consequences. Amending the definition would push the new concept into all of them at once, without the Legislature ever deciding which consequences it actually intends. A standalone protective-order pathway lets lawmakers choose deliberately. Texas already uses this structure for stalking, sexual-assault, and trafficking protective orders under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 7B.
Yes, in two layers, and the drafting team is handling this deliberately rather than quietly.
Because the bill keeps coercive-control orders inside Chapter 85 so they are enforceable, the Texas prohibition would follow unless the Legislature chooses otherwise. Whether it should, and on what standard of proof, is one of the open decisions listed on this page.
The Duluth Model's key insight — that abuse can be a pattern of domination rather than one isolated assault — informs this proposal. But the original model is explicitly gendered and has been criticized for not accounting for female perpetrators, male victims, same-sex relationships, bidirectional violence, substance abuse, or mental-health factors.
Texas should not write one treatment philosophy into statute. This bill is gender-neutral, conduct-based, and ideology-neutral, drafted independently of any single framework.
Forensic instruments such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised require trained evaluators and substantial collateral information; they are not casual checklists for labeling a former partner. Writing them into a statute raises due-process, evaluator-qualification, expert-evidence, and compelled-examination problems, and would convert a behavioral statute into a personality-diagnosis statute.
Research may inform the law, but the instrument should not become the law. If expert testimony is relevant in a given case, existing Texas evidence rules control admissibility.
No. Immediate criminalization invites vagueness challenges, First Amendment and due-process objections, mens rea disputes, and organized opposition. The bill creates a civil protective remedy. Violating a protective order is already a crime under Penal Code §25.07, and that does not change. Whether a future standalone offense is warranted can be studied after Texas gathers its own data.
Only when speech or a legal process is used as an instrument to compel unrelated or illegitimate compliance. "If you don't give me money, I'll expose your private information" can qualify. "If you keep contacting me, I'll report you to the police" cannot, and neither can "if you won't agree to custody terms, I'm filing suit." Texas Penal Code §1.07(a)(9) already defines this kind of coercion; the bill borrows from it selectively and pairs it with express safe harbors for good-faith reporting and lawful court filings. The broader problem of deliberately misusing courts, police reports, or agency processes as a weapon is being addressed in a separate proposal, so this bill stays narrow.
Before the proposal goes to a bill author, review is being sought from a deliberately mixed coalition: a domestic-violence survivor advocate, a criminal-defense lawyer, a prosecutor, a family-law attorney, a sitting or retired judge, a civil-liberties advocate, a law-enforcement representative, a wrongful-accusation perspective, and an academic or forensic expert on intimate-partner violence.
The goal is to be able to tell a legislative office: this language was not written by one advocacy camp. The reviewers who have agreed to be named appear in the Reviewed By section.
No, and we are saying so on purpose. The definition, the safeguards, and the standalone protective-order pathway are settled positions. Three decisions are still open, and we would rather hear from Texans before a bill author does:
Send your view to policy@MARIAHact.com. Every submission is read.
Before this proposal goes to a bill author, it is being read by people who do not usually agree with one another. Each reviewer is asked one question: does this language protect genuine victims and due process at the same time?
Review is ongoing. Reviewers are listed as they agree to be named, and a listing means the reviewer read the draft and offered comment, not that the reviewer or their organization endorses it.
From working draft to the Governor's signature
Tell your representative Texas should recognize coercive control without weakening due process. Sign the petition, join the coalition, or send the drafting team your view.
Your voice can pass the MARIAH Act.
Enter your ZIP code to find your Texas state legislators. A pre-written email will auto-fill with their name.
If you or someone you love has been harmed by a false allegation, your story matters. The MARIAH Act exists because of people like you.
Your contact information is kept strictly private and will never be shared. It is used only if we need to reach you based on your preferences above.
Are you part of an organization that supports balanced justice reform? Join our coalition of advocates, legal professionals, survivors, and community leaders.
Research, tools, and downloads for advocates.
If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, or family violence, help is available — free, confidential, and 24 hours a day.
The MARIAH Act is grounded in evidence. Below is a curated body of research across four areas relevant to the legislation — domestic violence, false allegations, protective order use and abuse, and coercive control. All findings are cited to their original sources.
Domestic violence remains one of the most underreported crimes in the United States. Key findings include:
Sources: CDC NISVS (2022); Bureau of Justice Statistics; Texas HHSC FY2025 Annual Report; Spitzberg (2002), review of 32 restraining order studies.
The consequences of family violence extend far beyond the immediate victim:
Sources: CDC Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) studies; National Alliance to End Homelessness; CDC, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence (2003, updated 2021).
Accurately measuring false allegations is methodologically difficult — definitions vary, intent is hard to prove, and many cases go unexamined. Nevertheless, a consistent body of research documents the problem:
Sources: Center for Prosecutor Integrity / YouGov Survey (Dec. 2020); Hines, D. — George Mason University (2022); ResearchGate meta-analysis on false allegations in custody disputes (2021); National Registry of Exonerations.
A growing body of legal and social science research examines the strategic use of abuse allegations in divorce and custody proceedings:
Sources: Bala, N. et al. (2007), "A Legal & Psychological Critique of the Present Approach to Child Custody"; Attorney at Law Magazine (March 2025); ResearchGate qualitative analysis of false allegations in separation disputes (2021).
The harm caused by a false allegation — before any hearing, investigation, or adjudication — can be immediate and life-altering:
Sources: Hines, D. — George Mason University (2022); Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 17.292 (ex parte protective orders); ResearchGate (2021).
Protective orders are a critical tool for genuine victims of domestic violence, and research supports their effectiveness when properly issued and enforced:
Sources: Benitez, C. et al. (2010), "A Review of the Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders"; Pennsylvania State University JLIA review (2022); Texas Capitol, SB 1325 (88th Legislature, 2023).
The same legal tools that protect genuine victims can be — and research documents are — misused as a tactical mechanism in family court:
Sources: Spitzberg, B. (2002), review of 32 CPO studies, cited in PMC Article PMC4747046; Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 17.292; HG.org, "When Protection Orders Are Misused"; ResearchGate (2021).
Texas law already recognizes the problem of false reports in one context — but leaves a critical gap:
Sources: Texas Penal Code § 261.107; Texas Penal Code § 37.02; Texas Family Code, Chapter 85 (Protective Orders).
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior used to dominate, manipulate, and restrict the freedom of an intimate partner. It extends well beyond physical violence:
Sources: Stark, E. (2007), Coercive Control, Oxford University Press; domesticshelters.org guide to coercive control (2021); Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society research brief.
Research consistently links coercive control patterns to increased risk of severe violence and homicide:
Sources: ADFVDRN (Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, 2022); Dichter, M.E. et al. (2018), PMC6291212; Johnson et al. (2017), Violence Against Women.
Abusers can — and do — weaponize legal systems as a form of coercive control:
Sources: NYSDA Coercive Control Guide; Buzawa et al. (2017), cited in Monash University Research Brief on Coercive Control; Crossman, K. et al. (2016), "He Could Scare Me Without Laying a Hand on Me," Violence Against Women.
Understanding coercive control makes the MARIAH Act's balanced framework more — not less — important:
See: MARIAH Act Legislative Package, Sections 3 (Definitions), 5 (Good-Faith Reporter Protections), and 6 (Penalties) — available on this site.
As a 501(c)(4) organization, donations are not tax-deductible — but they are powerful. Every dollar goes directly to passing the MARIAH Act.
We are finalizing our secure payment processing. In the meantime, please reach out directly to donate by check or to be notified when online giving is available.
Contact Us to Donate → donate@MARIAHact.com| Amount | Impact |
|---|---|
| $25 | Funds one day of digital advocacy outreach |
| $50 | Produces one TikTok video reaching 10,000+ Texans |
| $100 | Covers travel and lodging for one advocate to testify at committee |
| $250 | Sponsors a town hall meeting in a key legislative district |
| $500 | Funds a week of targeted social media ads to undecided legislators |
| $1,000 | Underwrites a legal analysis or white paper |
| $2,500 | Sponsors a billboard in a committee chair's district |