National Domestic Violence Hotline — 1-800-799-7233, or text START to 88788, or chat at thehotline.org. 24 hours, free, and you do not have to be in an emergency to call. They will talk through options with you and connect you to an advocate near you.
Advocates are trained in this and we are not. If you read one thing on this page, make it that number.
Domestic violence and divorce
The site already carries protective orders in all fifty states. This page is the layer underneath: how abuse changes the divorce itself. What the law counts as abuse and what it misses. Whether it changes custody, and the honest answer about how often the protections written into statute are actually applied. Why mediation is usually the wrong room. And how to document what is happening without putting yourself in more danger.
What counts as domestic violence
Legal definitions of domestic violence vary enormously by state. Many people experiencing abuse do not identify it as abuse because there has been no physical violence. Physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and financial abuse are all real, and a growing number of states now name a pattern called coercive control as its own legal category.
Coercive control is a legally recognized pattern in a small but growing number of states, defined as conduct that interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty, not necessarily involving physical violence.
California, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Washington have each written coercive control into their domestic violence or family code statutes since 2020. Colorado has written it into a custody-training and court-practice statute rather than its core domestic violence definition. See coercive_control_states below for citations and quotes.
See coercive_control_states array
Financial abuse occurs in the vast majority of domestic violence relationships.
NNEDV’s financial abuse fact sheet states financial abuse occurs in 99 percent of domestic violence cases, and that a 2014 study found 78 percent of Americans did not recognize financial abuse as a form of domestic violence. Financial abuse tactics include controlling all accounts, forcing a partner to miss work or sabotaging their employment, withholding money, giving an ‘allowance,’ stealing identity or money, and compelling fraudulent financial documents or credit-card debt.
Financial abuse occurs in 99% of domestic violence cases.
NNEDV, Financial Abuse Fact Sheet, March 2025
Coerced debt — debt an abusive partner generates in a survivor’s name through fraud or coercion — is common and specifically studied.
Reported consistently, not settled
A Michigan State University-affiliated study led by Dr. Adrienne Adams found that 52 percent of women who called a domestic violence hotline in the study sample had experienced coerced debt. Coerced debt happens when an abuser forces or tricks a partner into taking out loans, using credit cards, or opens accounts fraudulently using the partner’s identity. This can devastate a survivor’s credit and create a lasting barrier to leaving or to financial independence after divorce.
Fifty-two percent of the women who called into the hotline experienced coerced debt.
Abuse frequently continues, and can intensify, after separation — ‘post-separation abuse.’
Reported consistently, not settled
The National Domestic Violence Hotline states that a high share of serious injuries in abusive relationships occur when the survivor ends the relationship, and that leaving is often the most dangerous point in an abusive relationship, not the safest. This is why safety planning specifically for the period around filing and separation matters, and why an abuser may use legal process itself (custody fights, discovery, repeated filings) to continue control after a couple has separated.
75% of all serious injuries in abusive relationships occur when the survivor ends the relationship.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline, escalation resource page
Every state’s civil protective-order statute and a growing number of states’ family codes recognize non-physical patterns — coercive control, financial abuse, threats, isolation, monitoring — as domestic violence or as grounds for a protective order, even where no hitting has occurred.
See coercive_control_states array and Washington RCW 7.105.010
What to actually do
- If you are unsure whether what you are experiencing ‘counts,’ you do not need a legal label to reach out to an advocate or a hotline — describe what is happening and let a trained person help you think it through.
- Financial records (whose name is on which account, who has access to income, whether debt was taken out without full knowledge or consent) are worth understanding before a filing, because they affect both safety planning and the divorce case itself.
- State definitions vary widely — what qualifies for a protective order or affects custody in one state may not in another. This page describes general patterns, not any one state’s exact legal test.
Coercive control, and the handful of states that name it
Read at each statute, 1 September 2026. If your state is unshaded, coercive control is not a named legal category there. That does not mean it is not happening to you.
A great many people do not call what is happening to them abuse, because nobody has hit them. Coercive control is the pattern of isolation, monitoring, threats and financial control that runs underneath. A small and growing number of states have written it into their law. In the rest it is not a legal category at all, which does not mean it is not happening to you.
| State | Where it is written | What the law actually does |
|---|---|---|
| California | California Family Code section 6320, as amended by SB 1141 (2020) | Broadens the definition of abuse for civil domestic violence restraining order purposes (‘disturbing the peace’) to explicitly include coercive control, and lists examples. Family Code section 3044’s custody presumption applies when a court finds a party has perpetrated domestic violence, which can include this broadened definition. |
| Hawaii | Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 586-1 | Defines coercive control and lists it, alongside physical harm and extreme psychological abuse, as an explicit qualifying basis for a domestic abuse protective order. |
| Connecticut | Connecticut General Statutes section 46b-1(b)(4), added by Public Act 21-78 (‘Jennifer’s Law’), effective June 28, 2021 | Expands the statutory definition of ‘domestic violence’ used throughout Connecticut family relations proceedings to include coercive control as its own category, separate from physical violence. |
| Washington | Revised Code of Washington 7.105.010 | Defines coercive control as a form of domestic violence in Washington’s unified protection order statute, with an extensive list of example behaviors, including vexatious litigation used to harass or exhaust resources. |
| Colorado | Colorado Revised Statutes 14-10-127.5 (custody-context training and court-practice statute, not the general criminal domestic violence definition at 18-6-800.3) | Requires judicial and court-personnel training on coercive control in parental responsibility (custody) cases and restricts certain court practices (e.g., reunification treatment) without scientifically valid support; does not itself define coercive control as a stand-alone basis for the state’s general criminal domestic violence statute. |
Read on each legislature’s own site, 31 August 2026. If your state is not on this list, coercive control is not a named legal category there.
How abuse changes a custody case
Many states have a statutory presumption against awarding custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence, but the presumption is rebuttable, and research shows it is not always applied by judges in practice.
California Family Code section 3044 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a domestic violence perpetrator.
The presumption applies when a court finds a party has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party, a child of the parties, or certain other family members within the prior five years. To rebut it, the perpetrating parent must show custody is in the child’s best interest and satisfy a list of factors, including completion of a batterer’s treatment program meeting Penal Code section 1203.097(c) criteria, completion of alcohol/drug counseling and a parenting class where appropriate, compliance with probation/parole and any protective orders, and whether the parent has committed further acts of domestic violence.
There is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child.
California Family Code section 3044
Texas Family Code section 153.004 bars joint managing conservatorship and creates a rebuttable presumption against sole conservatorship for a parent with a history of family violence.
The statute prohibits joint managing conservatorship where credible evidence shows a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical/sexual abuse by one parent against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, and creates a rebuttable presumption that appointing that parent as sole managing conservator, or as the parent with the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence, is not in the child’s best interest.
It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of a parent as the sole managing conservator of a child or as the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child.
Texas Family Code section 153.004
Louisiana Revised Statute 9:364 creates a presumption against sole or joint custody for a parent with a history of perpetrating family violence, with a demanding three-part test to overcome it.
To rebut the presumption, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrating parent has successfully completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program after the last instance of abuse, is not abusing alcohol or illegal drugs, and that the child’s best interest requires that parent’s participation because of the other parent’s absence, mental illness, substance abuse, or another circumstance harming the child. All three must be met.
There is created a presumption that no parent who has a history of perpetrating family violence…or domestic abuse…shall be awarded sole or joint custody of children.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:364
Colorado has written a definition of coercive control into the statute governing custody-related judicial training and court practice, not into its base criminal domestic violence definition.
Colorado Revised Statutes 14-10-127.5 requires court personnel handling parental responsibility cases to complete substantial initial and ongoing training covering coercive control, child abuse, implicit bias, trauma, and perpetrator/victim behavioral patterns, and restricts courts from removing children from a protective parent or ordering reunification treatment without generally accepted, scientifically valid support. Colorado’s general criminal domestic violence definition (18-6-800.3) does not separately define ‘coercive control’ — it lists coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, and revenge only as possible motives for an underlying criminal act.
a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions
Colorado Revised Statutes 14-10-127.5; contrast with 18-6-800.3
Custody presumptions against abusers are frequently not applied in practice.
Reported consistently, not settled
A human-rights analysis published in 2004 interviewed 39 battered women involved in child custody litigation in Massachusetts. In 21 of the 39 (54 percent), one or more state actors granted or recommended physical custody to fathers with documented histories of intimate partner violence. In 27 of 39 (69 percent), family court actors refused to consider documented evidence of that violence as relevant, and in more than half of those (15 of 27) the documented abuser was awarded physical custody. Massachusetts has its own statutory custody presumption against abusive parents.
Read that as a description, not a rate. The 39 women were recruited through domestic violence services, so these are proportions within a group who already believed the court had failed them — not the share of Massachusetts custody cases that go this way. Nobody publishes that second number, which is part of the problem.
in over half of the cases (15 of 27) where state actors refused to consider such documentation, men documented to have been violent to their female partners were granted physical custody of children
Silverman, Mesh, Cuthbert, Slote and Bancroft, 2004, Child custody determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: a human rights analysis, American Journal of Public Health 94(6):951–957. PMID 15249297
A rebuttable presumption is a starting point, not a guarantee. It shifts the burden, but research shows that documented abuse is sometimes not treated as legally relevant, and abusive parents are still often awarded custody or unsupervised visitation. Whether the presumption is invoked and honored depends heavily on documentation, legal representation, and the individual judge.
PMC1448371 human rights analysis of Massachusetts family courts
What to actually do
- If your state has a custody presumption statute, ask a family law attorney or a legal advocate whether your documentation is likely to trigger it, and what the rebuttal standard actually requires in practice in your county.
- Keep in mind the presumption applies only when a court makes a finding of domestic violence — an allegation alone, without evidence or a prior finding (such as a protective order), may not be enough on its own.
- This is general information about four states’ statutes, not an exhaustive 50-state survey and not a prediction of outcome in any specific case.
Kayden’s Law and the federal role
Kayden’s Law, part of the 2022 VAWA Reauthorization, is a federal funding incentive, not a direct mandate on state family courts.
Kayden’s Law conditions federal STOP grant funding eligibility on states adopting certain custody-court practices; it does not itself rewrite any state’s custody law.
Reported consistently, not settled
Because family law is set at the state level, the federal provision cannot force a state court to do anything. Instead it offers states additional funding incentives if they pass their own laws addressing things like limiting reliance on reunification camps or programs without scientific support, requiring specialized judicial training on domestic violence and child abuse, and allowing evidence of relevant abuse and past protective orders to be considered in custody proceedings.
family law is governed primarily at the state level, Kayden’s Law does not automatically change state statutes. Instead, it conditions certain federal grant eligibility on adopting laws consistent with its provisions.
2022 VAWA Reauthorization Act, Title XV (Kayden’s Law provisions)
Several states have enacted their own state-level versions of Kayden’s Law.
Reported consistently, not settled
States reported to have passed their own aligned legislation include California (2023, known as Piqui’s Law), Colorado, Maryland (2024), Tennessee, and Utah (2024). Each state’s version differs in scope — some focus on judicial training, others on restricting court-ordered reunification therapy or expanding admissible evidence of abuse.
It is a grant-incentive program. It only affects a state’s custody practice if that state’s legislature separately chooses to pass a compliant law in order to access the additional funding.
What to actually do
- Check whether your state has passed its own Kayden’s Law-style legislation before assuming any of its protections apply to your case — the federal law by itself does not bind your state court.
- The list of states with enacted versions we could not verified against each state’s official statute text within this research; confirm current status before publishing a definitive state list.
Mediation and domestic violence
Mediation generally assumes both people can negotiate as relative equals. Because that assumption often fails where there has been abuse, many states screen for domestic violence before ordering mediation, or exempt DV cases outright.
California requires that mediators meet separately with each party when there is a history of domestic violence and the party alleging abuse requests separate sessions.
Family Code section 3181 requires that, upon the request of a party who alleges a history of domestic violence, the mediator hold separate meetings with each party at separate times, rather than a joint session. Intake forms used by family court services must notify parties of this right.
the mediator appointed pursuant to this chapter shall meet with the parties separately and at separate times
California Family Code section 3181
Florida statute bars a court from ordering a case to mediation, on a party’s motion, if there has been a history of domestic violence that would compromise the mediation process.
Reported consistently, not settled
This is not automatic — it requires a motion or request from a party, and a court finding that the history would compromise mediation.
Upon motion or request of a party, a court shall not refer any case to mediation if it finds there has been a history of domestic violence that would compromise the mediation process.
Florida Statutes section 44.102
Illinois exempts certain cases from mandatory mediation where ‘impediments,’ including domestic violence, exist.
Reported consistently, not settled
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 905(b)(iv) allows a court to exempt a case from mandatory mediation referral if certain impediments — domestic violence among them — are present.
Supreme Court Rule 905(b)(iv) exempts certain cases from the mediation process if certain ‘impediments’ exist.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 905(b)(iv)
Most states with mandatory mediation build in a screening step or an exemption process for domestic violence cases, because mediation assumes both parties can negotiate on relatively equal footing, which coercive control specifically undermines. Whether and how that exemption is applied varies by state and often requires you or your attorney to raise it.
What to actually do
- If mediation is ordered in your case and you have experienced abuse, ask your attorney or the court whether your state allows separate sessions, a support person, or an outright exemption — and raise it before mediation is scheduled, not after.
- This covers three states as examples, not a 50-state survey. Rules on domestic violence screening for mediation differ significantly by state and sometimes by county.
When litigation becomes a form of abuse
An abuser can use the court process itself — repeated filings, discovery demands, motions — to keep exerting control after separation. A small number of states have begun writing specific remedies for this into law.
Washington state has a dedicated statutory framework, ‘abusive litigation,’ addressing the use of repeated court filings as a domestic violence tactic.
Chapter 26.51 RCW allows a court to find that a party engaged in ‘abusive litigation’ when there is a current or former intimate partner relationship, a prior court finding that the filer committed domestic violence, the litigation is primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact, and at least one additional factor is present (claims lacking legal or factual support, allegations lacking evidentiary basis, or issues that were already litigated unfavorably). Remedies include dismissing the abusive filing with prejudice, awarding costs and attorney’s fees to the protected party, and imposing prefiling restrictions of 48 to 72 months requiring judicial permission before the abuser can file again against that person.
Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 26.51
Washington’s own coercive control statute explicitly lists ‘vexatious litigation’ used to harass or exhaust resources as an example of coercive control.
This connects the concept of coercive control directly to the family court process itself, treating repeated harassing litigation as a recognized abuse tactic rather than merely ‘high conflict’ divorce.
Engaging in vexatious litigation to harass or exhaust resources
Some states now legally distinguish ordinary contentious litigation from litigation that is being used, in purpose or effect, as a continuation of coercive control. Where that distinction exists in statute, courts have tools — fee awards, dismissal, prefiling restrictions — to respond to it directly.
What to actually do
- Keep a simple record of the volume and pattern of filings and discovery requests against you — a log of what was filed, when, and its outcome can help your attorney show a pattern if litigation abuse becomes relevant.
- Washington’s abusive-litigation statute is a distinctive, specific example. Not every state has an equivalent framework; where none exists, courts generally rely on general vexatious-litigant doctrines, which can be harder to invoke.
Protective orders and the divorce case
A protective order and a divorce are separate legal proceedings, but they interact — a protective order can grant exclusive possession of the home and temporary custody, and a qualifying order can trigger a federal firearms prohibition.
Protective orders can grant exclusive possession of the shared residence and temporary custody or visitation terms, separate from the divorce case itself.
For example, Virginia’s family abuse protective order statute lets a court grant the petitioner exclusive possession of the residence occupied by the parties (without affecting title to the property), and grant any other relief necessary for protection, including temporary custody or visitation of a minor child.
Granting the petitioner possession of the residence occupied by the parties to the exclusion of the respondent; however, no such grant of possession shall affect title to any real or personal property.
Virginia Code section 16.1-279.1
A qualifying domestic violence protective order can trigger a federal prohibition on firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8).
In United States v. Rahimi, decided June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 922(g)(8) by an 8-1 vote (Thomas, J., dissenting), holding that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The case involved a Texas protective order.
An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024)
A separate federal provision, 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9), bars firearm possession by anyone convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, regardless of whether a protective order is ever issued.
The statute applies where a misdemeanor conviction, state, federal or tribal, has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force, or threatened use of a deadly weapon, against a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly related to the victim. In United States v. Hayes (2009), the Supreme Court held the underlying misdemeanor statute does not need to include the domestic relationship as a formal element of the offense — the prohibition applies based on the factual domestic relationship between the parties.
is a misdemeanor under Federal, State or Tribal law; and has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim
18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9); United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009)
They are typically separate legal actions, sometimes in different courts, though many states allow a divorce court to also issue or incorporate protective-order-type relief, and terms like custody or exclusive home possession can be addressed in either, depending on the state and timing.
What to actually do
- If firearms are present in the household, ask an attorney or advocate specifically how a protective order in your state affects firearm possession — both federal law and many state laws have their own separate and sometimes overlapping firearm-surrender rules.
- Ask specifically whether your state’s protective order process can address the home and children directly, or whether those issues need to wait for the divorce filing.
- Firearm-surrender procedures (how, when, to whom) vary by state and by county law enforcement practice; the federal prohibition is a floor, not a complete description of what happens locally.
Documenting abuse safely
Good documentation can matter enormously to a case, but the act of documenting can itself be dangerous if an abuser monitors devices or accounts. NNEDV’s Safety Net project has specific guidance on this trade-off.
Documentation should be stored somewhere the abuser cannot access, and survivors should weigh the safety risk of documenting against the value of the record.
Safety Net (a project of NNEDV) recommends recording dates, times, locations, and descriptions of incidents, and cautions that in some cases, when abusers learn victims are documenting the abuse, they may escalate. It recommends against storing evidence on shared devices or in shared accounts, since some apps and platforms notify the other account holder of activity like screenshots, and printers on shared work or school networks may log who printed what.
Think about your safety first. In some cases, when abusers know that victims are documenting the abuse, they might escalate.
NNEDV Safety Net Project, Documentation Tips for Survivors
What to actually do
- Store documentation on a device and account the other party does not have access to and did not set up — not a shared family computer, shared cloud account, or a phone plan the other party administers.
- A written, dated, contemporaneous log (even brief notes) can carry weight precisely because it was written close in time to the event, not reconstructed later from memory.
- Photographs of injuries or damage, medical records, and police reports are all forms of documentation, but each carries its own access risk — think through who else could see it before you create or save it.
- If in doubt about whether a specific method of documenting is safe given your situation, a local domestic violence advocate can help you think through device and account safety specific to your circumstances.
- There is no universally ‘safe’ way to document abuse — what is safe depends on what access the other party has to your devices, accounts, mail, and home, and that access can change quickly, especially around a filing.
Safety planning around a filing
A safety plan is an individualized, practical plan built with a trained advocate. Confidentiality protections differ between advocates and therapists, and many states let a survivor keep their address off court filings entirely.
Domestic violence advocate confidentiality is a distinct legal protection from therapist-client confidentiality, is not absolute, and varies by state.
Advocate or ‘victim counselor’ privilege is a separate statutory protection, distinct from therapist privilege, that many but not all states extend to conversations with trained domestic violence advocates. It is not unlimited: common exceptions include a duty to warn of imminent threats of serious bodily harm or a planned violent crime, mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect, the presence of a third party during the conversation, waiver by the survivor, and court-ordered review of records in some cases. State statutes, case law, and local practice differ significantly.
Statutes, case law, funding requirements, and local policy/practice vary from state to state.
Battered Women’s Justice Project, Confidentiality: An Advocate’s Guide
Address confidentiality programs exist in most states and let survivors use a substitute mailing address, keeping their real address off public records including court filings.
Reported consistently, not settled
These programs (commonly run through a state’s Secretary of State office) assign participants a substitute address for state and local government records, including in many states court filings. Program names vary — for example, California’s is called ‘Safe At Home,’ several other states also use the name ‘Safe at Home’ (including Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin per available program listings), while many other states simply call it an ‘Address Confidentiality Program.’
They are governed by different, separately-created legal protections that vary by state, with different exceptions. Neither is absolute — both carry duty-to-warn and mandatory child-abuse-reporting exceptions in most states.
What to actually do
- A local domestic violence program can help build a safety plan specific to your situation, usually free and confidential — find one through the National Domestic Violence Hotline or a state coalition.
- Ask early whether your state’s address confidentiality program can apply before you file for divorce, since enrollment and the process for keeping your address off the initial filing can take time to set up.
- If you are enrolled in an address confidentiality program, tell your attorney immediately so filings are drafted to use the substitute address rather than your real one.
- The specific list of which states use the name ‘Safe at Home’ versus a generic program name was compiled from an aggregator directory rather than confirmed individually against every state’s official program page; state-by-state accuracy should be reverified before publishing an authoritative list on the site.
- Enrolling in an address confidentiality program does not retroactively remove an address that has already appeared in existing public records or that the other party already knows.
Who to call
We have stated what each of these does and does not promise about confidentiality, rather than telling you they are simply confidential. You deserve the real answer before you dial, not after.
24/7 phone, text, and chat support for anyone affected by domestic violence, available in English and Spanish with interpretation in many other languages.
Call 1-800-799-7233 (1-800-799-SAFE), text START to 88788, or chat at thehotline.org.
On confidentiality: Described by the Hotline as free and confidential. The site directs callers who feel they are in immediate, life-threatening danger to call 911 directly. This research could not verify the exact written policy describing all circumstances under which an advocate might independently contact emergency services or break confidentiality without a caller’s consent — confirm current policy directly with the Hotline before stating anything more specific.
A project of NNEDV providing state-by-state plain-language legal information for people affected by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, plus a confidential Email Hotline staffed by licensed attorneys.
womenslaw.org; Email Hotline accessible through the site.
On confidentiality: Described as safe and confidential; licensed attorneys respond to or review each message, available in English and Spanish.
A helpline for Native American and Alaska Native survivors of domestic and sexual violence, staffed by advocates familiar with Native culture and resources, available 24/7 by phone, text, and chat.
1-844-762-8483 (1-844-7NATIVE).
On confidentiality: The service states calls are filtered through software that removes caller identification, including phone number and location, and that chat/text are confidential and anonymous. It explicitly cannot connect callers to 911 — callers in immediate danger are told to hang up and dial 911 themselves.
A 24/7 hotline for Deaf survivors of domestic violence, offering video phone and ASL-accessible support.
855-812-1001 (video phone).
On confidentiality: Described on its site as free and confidential; this research did not surface a fuller written policy on limits.
Peer support hotline and chat run by the LGBT National Help Center, covering a broad range of issues including relationship and domestic violence concerns for LGBTQ callers.
1-888-843-4564; chat at lgbthotline.org/chat. Hours: Mon-Fri 11am-8pm Pacific / 2pm-11pm Eastern; Sat 9am-2pm Pacific / noon-5pm Eastern.
On confidentiality: The organization states calls are confidential, that they do not know who callers are, that no recordings are made, and that they do not report calls to outside organizations.
Describes itself as the nation’s largest organization supporting LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected survivors of violence, though its crisis hotline itself is New York City-based rather than a national phone line.
212-714-1141, Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm ET, Friday 10am-2pm ET.
On confidentiality: Offers crisis intervention, bilingual English/Spanish; a detailed written confidentiality policy was not located in this research.
Male survivors of domestic violence are served by the National Domestic Violence Hotline and WomensLaw.org (which, despite its name, serves all genders) alongside general services. This research was not able to verify a single, established, national US hotline dedicated specifically and exclusively to male domestic violence survivors that is currently operating — several older organizations referenced in search results (e.g., the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women) appear to be UK-based, not US-based.
National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233.
On confidentiality: Same confidentiality framework as the National Domestic Violence Hotline above.
This page is information, not advice, and it is not a substitute for talking with someone trained to help. We are not domestic violence advocates, and we don’t know your specific situation — only you and the people who know your circumstances can weigh how dangerous something is and what to do about it. If you are worried about your safety, please consider reaching out to the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) or a local domestic violence program; their advocates are trained to help you build a plan that fits your life, confidentially and at no cost. If you are ever in immediate danger, call 911. Laws described on this page vary by state and change over time — we’ve cited our sources so you or your attorney can verify anything that matters for your case, but nothing here should be read as legal advice about what will happen in your specific case.
Three things we want to be straight about. We could not find a written policy from any hotline stating exactly when they will contact emergency services without your consent, so we have not told you they never will. We could not confirm a currently operating US national helpline specifically for male survivors, so we have not invented one. And the state address-confidentiality programs below come from a directory rather than from each state’s own office, so check yours directly.
This page has not been reviewed by a domestic violence advocate. If you are one and something here is wrong or reads badly, please tell us and we will change it.