When would a judge make an abuse prevention order permanent? Can the judge extend it solely based on past abuse? The recent Massachusetts case of McIsaac v. Porter answered that question. [1]
In that case, the plaintiff and defendant had dated for about six years and lived together for about six months. For example, the defendant, suffering from depression and drinking alcohol to cope, became aggressive and violent with the plaintiff. He dragged her across the room, broke her glasses, and choked her, leaving bruises on her collarbone and arms.
In December 2013, the defendant became angry. He lunged at the plaintiff, choking and punching her. He then asked if she wanted to die that night. The defendant caused the plaintiff to have bruises on her back, sides, chest, arms, and face. The plaintiff filed for an abuse prevention order under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 209A in January 2014. The court granted the order ex parte. It was then extended twice. As a result, the defendant faced assault and battery charges. He received a continuance without a finding, along with a five-year probation period.
In January of 2015, the plaintiff sought to make the abuse prevention order permanent. She testified that she continued to remain scared and in fear of the defendant; furthermore, she desired an extra measure of safety and protection from him. Additionally, she noted that the parties attended the same out-of-state college. They both stayed involved in the same alumni network. The judge granted the permanent abuse prevention order. He found a past incident to be “very serious.”
The defendant appealed, arguing that the order was improper because it was entirely based on past abuse, with no finding that the plaintiff currently had any reasonable fear of imminent harm. The Appeals Court held that a judge may extend an abuse prevention order “where, as here, the judge finds that the victim is still reasonably suffering fear due to a past incident of serious physical abuse, regardless of whether the victim also reasonably fears imminent serious physical harm.” [2] The Court noted that an order may issue to protect a victim from the continuing impact of violence which was caused entirely in the past.
Should you have any questions about domestic relations issues, don’t hesitate to call our firm. Schedule a free consultation with us, and one of our experienced family law attorneys will get back to you at the earliest availability.
[1] McIsaac v. Porter, No. 16-P-135 (October 14, 2016-December 9, 2016)
[2] Id., at 2.