A protective order, sometimes also referred to as a restraining order, serves to protect a victim of domestic abuse which is perpetrated by a member or former member of the victim’s household. It may also serve to protect a victim from abuse or violence perpetrated by someone the victim is or was dating.
The recent case of G.B. v. C.A. involved veracious protective order requests against a defendant who was a Boston police officer.
In that case, the parties were in a dating relationship for three years. The day after the relationship ended, the defendant appeared at the plaintiff’s workplace and attempted to return ceramic flowers to her. A struggle ensued, and surveillance cameras captured a video of the struggle from two different angles. The video showed that the plaintiff threw the flowers in the trash; the defendant retrieved them; and the plaintiff then lunged at the defendant, pointing long fingernails at his face. As the parties struggled, they went off camera for some time. The plaintiff eventually landed on the ground and injured her face and lip.
The plaintiff attempted to call the police, and the defendant tried to take her cell phone away from her, boxing her into a corner. When a 911 operator called back, the defendant answered the plaintiff’s phone. He then walked across the street to a police station, and officers came on the scene and transported the plaintiff to a hospital for treatment.
The following day, the parties appeared in court, each seeking a protective order against the other. The judge viewed the video recording of the struggle between the parties and declined to grant either party’s request. Subsequently, the Boston Police Department’s domestic violence unit investigated the matter; it eventually filed criminal charges against the plaintiff. It did not charge the defendant, though it did refer the matter to the BPD’s Internal Affairs division.
About six weeks later, the plaintiff filed for another protective order against the defendant. She alleged that he followed her in his car, intimidated her, and had a friend call her and threaten her not to go to court. The following month, a clerk magistrate heard the criminal charges against the plaintiff. The clerk held the application “in abeyance” for sixty days and told the parties to stay away from each other. He noted that if there were no further incidents, the criminal complaint would be dismissed.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed for another protective order, alleging that the defendant followed her, carried a gun, and drove by her work, that he had contacted her on an Internet application called “WhatsApp,” and that he “went to Housing to try to tell lies”. A third judge denied the request.
Success for the plaintiff:
The plaintiff filed for a protective order for the fourth time, about a month later. This time, because the plaintiff had moved, she was referred to a different court for her filing. The plaintiff recounted the original altercation, indicating that the defendant grabbed her, struck her in the face, pushed her, and slammed her against the ground. She also stated that she was “tired of being afraid” of the defendant. She claimed that two different judges on two different dates ordered the defendant to stay away from her, not to drive by her job, and not to contact her in any way, and that he had violated those orders on five separate dates.
The fourth judge granted the protective order ex parte, then scheduled the matter for further hearing. Another judge heard the matter and extended the protective order for a year. The defendant appealed, claiming that the judge abused his discretion in granting the order. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered abuse. He claimed the only “new” evidence presented by the plaintiff in support of the request was an incident where the defendant drove by the plaintiff’s workplace.
The Appeals Court disagreed with the defendant. It held that the trial judge was within his discretion to find for the plaintiff, based on the totality of the circumstances. The court explained that “it was ultimately up to the judge to determine the credibility of the witnesses. He could have believed her version of events, or not. Indeed, he would have been within his discretion in finding that the plaintiff was the initial aggressor in the December, 2015 incident, or that it involved mutual combat. Neither finding, however, would negate the further discretion afforded the judge to consider this incident in the totality of the circumstances surrounding the request for the 209A order at issue in this case.”
Are you looking for an experienced Newburyport or Andover divorce lawyer? If you need assistance with a restraining order or have any questions about divorce or family law issues, you may schedule a free consultation with our experienced attorneys. Call 978-225-9030 during regular business hours or complete our online contact form, and we will respond to your phone call or submission promptly.