R.D. v. W.H.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-186

R.D.

vs.

W.H.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from the extension of an abuse

prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, § 3 (209A

order) and from the subsequent modification, rather than

termination, of the order. We affirm.

Background. The parties moved in together in March 2019,

and the plaintiff gave birth to their child in August 2019. In

October 2019, the defendant was indicted in the United States

District Court for the District of Massachusetts on a variety of

drug and gun charges. The defendant pleaded guilty in March

2022, and was awaiting sentencing. On May 9, 2022, the

plaintiff filed a complaint for a 209A order on behalf of

herself and the child, alleging that the defendant had placed

her in fear of imminent serious physical harm. A District Court

judge issued the 209A order ex parte. On May 23, 2022, the
defendant was charged with violating the 209A order. On June 6,

2022, an extension hearing was held on the 209A order at which

both parties were represented by counsel. The plaintiff

testified but the defendant did not, apparently because of the

pending criminal charges. The judge extended the order for one

year. In July 2022, the defendant received a Federal prison

sentence of more than seven years. In August 2022, he filed a

motion to terminate the 209A order or, in the alternative, to

modify it. After a hearing on September 9, 2022, a different

judge (motion judge) modified the order to allow the defendant

to have some contact with the child by telephone and mail.

Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of evidence. The defendant

contends that the judge abused his discretion by extending the

209A order and applied an incorrect legal standard at the

extension hearing. See Constance C. v. Raymond R., 101 Mass.

App. Ct. 390, 394 (2022), quoting E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass.

558, 562 (2013) (extension of 209A order reviewed "for an abuse

of discretion or other error of law"). We disagree.

"The standard for obtaining an extension of an abuse

prevention order is the same as for an initial order -- 'most

commonly, the plaintiff will need to show a reasonable fear of

imminent serious physical harm at the time that relief . . . is

sought.'" S.V. v. R.V., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 811, 813 (2019),

quoting McDonald v. Caruso, 467 Mass. 382, 386 (2014). "[F]or

2
the plaintiff's fear of imminent serious physical harm to be

reasonable, it is not necessary that there be a history –- or

even a specific incident of physical violence." Noelle N. v.

Frasier F., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 660, 665 (2020). In evaluating

whether the plaintiff has met her burden of proving that she has

a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, the judge

"must consider the totality of the circumstances of the parties'

relationship." Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 740 (2005).

According to the plaintiff's affidavit in support of the ex

parte order, earlier that day, during a telephone call, the

defendant yelled at her and told her that he was going to her

mother's house to attack the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff

further alleged that the defendant had been "diagnosed with

bipolar disorder/depression," had a history of violence toward

his former wife, had access to weapons in the past, and she

"suspected that he [was] on steroids."

At the extension hearing, the plaintiff testified that

after the ex parte order issued, the defendant was verbally

abusive to her, and "threatened through a third party . . . that

if [she] continue[d] to keep [their] son away from him, that he

[was] going to take [her] down with him." The plaintiff

indicated that the defendant's erratic behavior had "gotten

progressively worse" since he became aware of the sentencing

date in Federal Court, he had threatened to kill himself, and

3
she had to "walk on eggshells around him." She also testified

that she was afraid the defendant would become physically

violent toward her based on incidents during which he was "in

[her] face . . . aggressive and in [her] space, and intimidating

[her] with his body size." She testified that she believed the

defendant was staying with relatives who had guns in their

house.

Based on the evidence, the judge could have concluded that

the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant had placed her in reasonable fear of imminent serious

physical harm. See Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139,

141 (2006) (reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm

where defendant was "physically aggressive" with plaintiff

despite not touching her, by screaming and waving his hands in

her face). See also Noelle N., 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 665-666

(erratic and unstable behavior can create reasonable

apprehension that force might be used).

We are not persuaded by the defendant's argument that the

judge applied an incorrect legal standard at the extension

hearing. The defendant points to the judge's remark at the

outset of the extension hearing, explaining to the plaintiff

that he had to find a "reasonable basis" to extend the order

based on her "present apprehension . . . [t]hat could be based

on fear of intimidation, abuse." The judge ultimately found

4
that "the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the

credible evidence that she does suffer from fear of, or

reasonably suffer from fear of physical abuse." To whatever

extent the judge's informal oral comments articulated the

standard imperfectly, we are satisfied that he applied it

correctly. There was no error or abuse of discretion.

2. Defendant's right to be heard. We disagree with the

defendant's assertion that he was deprived of a meaningful

opportunity to counter the plaintiff's claims that the relatives

with whom he was staying had guns in their home, and on a past

occasion, he had spit in his former mother-in-law's face.

A defendant in a 209A extension hearing "has a right to

notice and an opportunity to be heard." M.M. v. Doucette, 92

Mass. App. Ct. 32, 34 (2017). See Guidelines for Judicial

Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings § 1:02 (rev. Oct. 2021).

"A meaningful opportunity to be heard includes an opportunity to

address the material and determinative allegations at the core

of a party's claim or defense and to present evidence on the

contested facts." Idris I. v. Hazel H., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 784,

788 (2022).

Here, the defendant, who was represented by counsel,

neither objected to the plaintiff's testimony nor sought

additional time to investigate her assertions. He argues on

appeal that he should have been allowed to present rebuttal

5
evidence, but never requested the opportunity to do so at the

hearing. The defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff on

either assertion nor address them during closing argument. Any

argument that the defendant was unfairly surprised by the

plaintiff's testimony was waived. See Wilhelmina W. v. Uri U.,

102 Mass. App. Ct. 634, 641 (2023) (arguments not raised to

judge are waived).

3. Termination of the 209A order. The defendant claims

the motion judge abused his discretion by "refusing to even

consider termination of the 209A order." See MacDonald, 467

Mass. at 394. First, we think this argument mischaracterizes

the judge's ruling and the underlying hearing. The defendant's

motion was to terminate the 209A order or, in the alternative,

to modify it to permit contact with the child. At the start of

the hearing, the judge verified that the motion was pleaded in

the alternative. A lengthy dialogue followed between the judge

and counsel, during which they focused on how to facilitate

telephone contact with the child. Toward the end of the

hearing, the judge indicated that his role was not to "mediate"

the dispute, and if pressed to decide the motion, he would deny

it. The defendant responded by returning the discussion to the

logistics of telephone contact. After further back and forth

between the judge and the parties, an agreement was reached that

the order would be modified. When the judge ultimately stated,

6
"[T]he motion is denied in part and allowed in part," the

defendant did not object.

We see nothing in the tone or conduct of the hearing that

supports the defendant's contention that the judge refused to

consider termination of the 209A order. After actively

participating in a negotiated agreement for modification and

failing to press for termination of the 209A order in any

meaningful way, the defendant can hardly complain now that he

was deprived of a fair hearing by the judge. See Wilhelmina W.,

102 Mass. App. Ct. at 641.

Moreover, the judge had ample basis to deny so much of the

defendant's motion as requested termination of the 209A order.

The first judge understood the defendant's prison sentence was

imminent when he granted a one-year extension of the 209A order.

That the sentence had been imposed, as expected, when the motion

judge heard the defendant's motion three months later was not "a

significant change in circumstances" that would warrant

termination of the order. See MacDonald, 467 Mass. at 382-383

(termination of existing 209A order requires defendant to "show

by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of a

significant change in circumstances, it is no longer equitable

7
for the order to continue because the protected party no longer

has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm").

Orders extending and
modifying abuse prevention
order affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Brennan &
Hodgens, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: November 14, 2023.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

8