Domestic violence remains one of the most underreported crimes in the United States. Key findings include:

• The CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) found that approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence in their lifetime.
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that more than half of all intimate partner violence goes unreported to law enforcement.
• In Texas, the HHSC Family Violence Program served over 65,900 adults and children across its shelter network in a single year (FY2024–2025), demonstrating the scale of need.
• Texas issues over 40,000 protective orders annually, yet research shows that between 23% and 70% of such orders are violated — a sign that the civil order system alone is insufficient without criminal accountability mechanisms.

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:

• Children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, PTSD, and academic difficulties, as well as to perpetrate or experience violence as adults (CDC, Adverse Childhood Experiences studies).
• Domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women and children. Research from the National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that up to 50% of homeless women are fleeing domestic violence.
• The economic cost of intimate partner violence in the U.S. exceeds $8.3 billion annually in medical care, mental health services, and lost productivity (CDC).

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:

• A 2020 national survey by YouGov (N=2,407, conducted for the Center for Prosecutor Integrity) found that 8% of Americans — approximately 20.4 million adults — report having been falsely accused of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or another form of abuse. In 27% of cases, the false allegation arose in the context of a child custody dispute.
• A 2020 YouGov survey also found that 17% of respondents knew someone who had experienced a false domestic violence claim.
• Research by Dr. Denise Hines (George Mason University) found that among men who experienced female-perpetrated intimate partner violence, 73% reported that their partner threatened to make false accusations, and 56% said the partner actually did make false accusations of physical or sexual abuse.
• Studies estimate that false allegations of domestic violence in family court proceedings range from 1% to 35%, depending on methodology, jurisdiction, and definition — with most conservative peer-reviewed estimates falling between 6% and 12% in active custody disputes (ResearchGate, 2021 meta-analysis).
• The National Registry of Exonerations identifies false allegations and perjury as the leading contributing factor to wrongful convictions, responsible for 61% of such cases.

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:

• Legal commentators have described the phenomenon as the "Silver Bullet Method" — the strategic filing of a domestic violence or child abuse allegation timed to gain a tactical advantage in divorce and custody litigation (Attorney at Law Magazine, 2025).
• Nicholas Bala et al. (2007) found in a study of custody disputes that 4% of child abuse allegations were deliberately false, while a larger proportion were made in good faith but were ultimately unsubstantiated. The lower evidentiary threshold in family court — compared to criminal court — makes such claims easier to file and harder to rebut.
• Research documents that the gap in evidentiary standards between family and criminal courts "opens the door to the use of false allegations in order to gain an advantage in the legal process." (ResearchGate, 2021)
• False allegations in custody disputes have been described in the literature as "a weapon of destruction in a family" and are frequently linked to parental alienation strategies.

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:

• Loss of employment, professional licensure, and income.
• Removal from the family home via emergency ex parte protective orders — in Texas, without the accused being present or notified in advance.
• Loss of child custody or visitation, including emergency temporary orders that can take months or years to reverse.
• Reputational damage in the community, workplace, and with extended family.
• Significant mental health consequences: Dr. Hines' research found that false accusations can cause depression, PTSD, and other severe psychological harm in the target.
• In cases involving children, false accusations have been used to terminate a non-custodial parent's contact with their child entirely — with no immediate criminal accountability for the accuser.

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:

• One study found that women who obtained permanent restraining orders were 80% less likely to experience physical abuse in the year following the incident that prompted the order, compared to those without an order (Benitez et al., 2010).
• A study involving 698 survivors found that only 9% of women dropped the protective order, suggesting that the vast majority of recipients viewed them as necessary and effective.
• As of September 1, 2025, Texas law now requires emergency protective orders to last a minimum of 61 days (and up to 121 days in deadly weapon cases) — an update to prior law that reflected advocacy for stronger protections.

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:

• Texas ex parte protective orders can be obtained without the accused present or notified — meaning one party's unverified account can result in immediate removal from the home, loss of child access, and firearm surrender before any hearing.
• Research by Spitzberg (2002), reviewing 32 studies, found that the average violation rate of civil protection orders is 40% — raising questions about their deterrent effect when motivated by strategic rather than genuine safety concerns.
• Legal analysts note that the lower evidentiary threshold in family court versus criminal court creates structural incentives for tactical filing: an allegation that could not survive criminal scrutiny can still produce immediate, significant consequences in family court.
• HG.org legal analysis (a legal information resource used by practicing attorneys) notes that protection orders obtained on false pretenses can permanently affect the respondent's reputation, employment, and future legal proceedings — even if later dismissed.

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:

• Texas Penal Code § 261.107 makes filing a knowingly false child abuse report a State Jail Felony. The legislature recognized that false child abuse reports cause serious harm and deserve criminal consequences.
• However, there is no equivalent statute for knowingly false allegations of domestic violence or sexual assault — meaning that behavior that is criminally penalized in the child welfare context is entirely unpenalized in the family court context.
• General perjury statutes (Texas Penal Code § 37.02) theoretically apply, but are rarely if ever prosecuted in the family court setting, providing no meaningful deterrent.
• The MARIAH Act closes this gap by extending the accountability framework that already exists in Texas child protection law to cover domestic violence and sexual assault allegations.

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:

• Forensic social worker and researcher Evan Stark, Ph.D. — author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life — estimates that between 60% and 80% of female domestic abuse survivors have experienced coercive control beyond physical and emotional abuse.
• A brief by the Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society reports that more than 95% of domestic violence victims experience coercive control as part of their abuse.
• Coercive control can include: isolation from family and friends; financial control and economic abuse; monitoring of movements, communications, and social media; threats; gaslighting and psychological manipulation; control of daily routines; and use of children as tools of control.
• Critically, coercive control is present in cases even where no physical violence has occurred — meaning that absence of visible injury does not indicate absence of abuse.

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:

• The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network found that coercive and controlling behaviors were documented precursors to homicide in the majority of fatal domestic violence cases reviewed.
• Dichter et al. (2018, PMC) found that coercive control is associated with elevated rates of psychological, physical, and sexual violence victimization — confirming that coercive control is not a separate category of abuse but an escalating system of control that incorporates multiple forms of violence.
• Research published in Violence Against Women found that extreme violence can occur even in relationships where traditional "warning signs" of escalating physical assault are absent — precisely because coercive control operates through psychological domination rather than physical incident escalation.

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:

• Litigation abuse: Using repeated court filings, false allegations, and custody battles as a mechanism to continue harassment and control of a victim after separation.
• Financial abuse through legal proceedings: Forcing victims to spend resources defending against frivolous allegations, depleting savings and increasing dependency.
• Using children as leverage: Filing custody actions and abuse allegations involving children as a means of maintaining contact with and control over the victim.
• The NYSDA (New York State Defenders Association) Coercive Control Guide notes that the legal system must recognize coercive control as a pattern rather than a series of isolated incidents — and that judges, advocates, and attorneys need training to identify it.
• This creates a two-directional challenge for courts: they must recognize genuine coercive control by abusers and recognize when the legal system itself is being used as a coercive tool by a bad-faith litigant.

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:

• Genuine victims of coercive control are fully protected under the MARIAH Act. The legislation's good-faith immunity provision ensures that any person who reports abuse based on an honest belief — even if the claim cannot ultimately be proven — faces no legal risk whatsoever.
• The MARIAH Act targets only knowingly false allegations — those made with intent to deceive and awareness of likely harm. This is a high legal bar requiring proof of malicious intent, not mere error or unprovable claims.
• By creating accountability for bad-faith litigants who use the legal system as a coercive tool, the MARIAH Act strengthens the credibility of the family court system for genuine victims — who are too often disbelieved precisely because of the documented history of tactical filings.
• Accountability and compassion are not opposites. They are mutually reinforcing pillars of a justice system that serves everyone fairly.

See: MARIAH Act Legislative Package, Sections 3 (Definitions), 5 (Good-Faith Reporter Protections), and 6 (Penalties) — available on this site.