Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734 (2005)

The plaintiff and the defendant lived together and had a child. Over a period of approximately two to four years, the defendant physically abused the plaintiff. The plaintiff previously obtained an abuse prevention order against the defendant under General Laws chapter 209A. That order later expired. The day after the order expired, the defendant contacted the plaintiff by telephone in an agitated and threatening manner, and the plaintiff sought an extension of the protection order. Before the hearing on the extension, the plaintiff reported that the defendant made repeated telephone calls to her. The calls alternated between attempts at reconciliation and hostile behavior. Many of the calls occurred while the plaintiff was at work and ultimately caused her to lose her job. The plaintiff stated that she feared the defendant would kill her if the order were not extended. At the extension hearing, the defendant argued through counsel that his contact with the plaintiff was solely for the purpose of reestablishing a relationship with his son. The trial judge denied the request to extend the order, stating only that the plaintiff was “clearly in fear no matter what,” and provided no further explanation or findings. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court addressed the standard governing extensions of abuse prevention orders. The Court held that a plaintiff seeking an extension must make a showing similar to that required for the issuance of an initial order, by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court explained that, in evaluating whether an extension is warranted, a judge may consider factors including prior violations of protective orders, ongoing custody or related litigation likely to generate hostility, the parties’ demeanor in court, the likelihood that the parties will encounter each other in ordinary activities, and any significant changes in the parties’ circumstances. The Court concluded that the trial judge erred by failing to identify the applicable burden of proof and by failing to explain which aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence were insufficient to justify an extension. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the proper legal standard.

See also: Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings.

Topics

• Domestic and intimate partner violence

Geographical location

• North America
• United States
• Massachusetts

Keywords

• protection orders
• evidentiary standards
• burden of proof

Year

• 2005

External URL

• Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734 (2005)

Court

• Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Type

• Domestic Case Law

Jurisdiction

• Massachusetts