K.A. v. C.G.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0809
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

24-P-809

K.A.

vs.

C.G.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge

extended the plaintiff's one-year abuse prevention order against

her former boyfriend, the defendant, for an additional year. On

appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was

insufficient to allow a finding that the plaintiff continued to

suffer from abuse, in the form of a fear of imminent serious

physical harm, at the time of the renewal hearing. Determining

that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

Background. During the renewal hearing, the judge reviewed

the plaintiff's affidavit which recounted that the defendant had

threatened the plaintiff, her family, and her friends on

multiple occasions including specifically on August 13, 2022. At that time, the defendant told the plaintiff that he had

bought a gun and that he was going to "put a bullet through [the

plaintiff's] friend's head, then go to [the plaintiff] right

after." The incident "caused [her] immediate fear." The

plaintiff also related that the defendant had threatened her

with "suicidal attempts." After their relationship ended, the

plaintiff blocked the defendant from all social media, but this

did not deter him from continuing to pursue her; she feared that

she and those around her were in physical danger.

After affirming that the statements in the affidavit were

true, the plaintiff stated that she was seeking an extension

because she remained in fear. She emphasized that the defendant

had threatened to murder her with a gun, and that he was

unstable and volatile. 1

The defendant offered three videos, posted by the plaintiff

on social media, and argued that they indicated that the

plaintiff "made light of the situation, that there is actually

no fear." Finding sufficient basis in the evidence, the judge

renewed the order for an additional year.

Discussion. We review the issuance or renewal of a c. 209A

order for an abuse of discretion or other error of law. See

1 The plaintiff also testified that the defendant would threaten to send photos and videos to her employer to get her fired if she did not agree to meet with him.

2 Constance C. v. Raymond R., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 390, 394 (2022).

A judge's discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of

discretion where the reviewing court "conclude[s] the judge made

a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to

the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range of

reasonable alternatives" (quotations and citations omitted).

L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).

Here, the plaintiff sought protection under G. L. c. 209A

on the basis that the defendant had placed her in fear of

imminent serious physical harm. When a plaintiff seeks to

establish that the defendant's words and conduct have put the

plaintiff in fear of imminent serious physical harm, that fear

must be objectively reasonable in light of the defendant's

actions and the attendant circumstances. See Ginsberg v.

Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 143 (2006).

At any renewal hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of

establishing that "an extension of the order is necessary to

protect her from the likelihood of 'abuse' as defined in G. L.

c. 209A, § 1." Vera V. v. Seymour S., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 315,

318 (2020), quoting Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. at 734, 739

(2005). In this case, the plaintiff was required to show that,

at the time of the extension hearing, she had a reasonable fear

of imminent serious physical harm. See Iamele v. Asselin, 444

Mass. at 734-735.

3 The defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff's affidavit

provided sufficient evidence to issue the restraining order at

the outset. He contends, however, that the plaintiff's stated

reason for renewing the order reveals no continuing fear.

Contrary to the defendant's assessment, the plaintiff's

testimony was replete with references to her fear of the

defendant.

When asked why she felt she needed an extension of the

order, the plaintiff said, "he threatened me after and during

our time together. . . . this individual has made me fear for my

life. He was very unstable and volatile. . . . He got guns and

-- like, a gun involved . . . . Threatened me with a gun -- for

murder. So for my safety and my mental peace, I am seeking the

renewal of the restraining order." The plaintiff specifically

confirmed to the judge that she remained in fear of the

"It is the totality of the conditions that exist at the

time that the plaintiff seeks the extension, viewed in the light

of the initial abuse prevention order, that govern." Iamele,

444 Mass. at 740. Given the basis for the initial abuse

prevention order -- the defendant's threat to "put a bullet

through [the plaintiff's] friend's head, then go to [the

4 plaintiff] right after" -- the ongoing fear expressed by the

plaintiff appears to be reasonable. We discern no error or

abuse of discretion in the judge's extension of the order.

Order entered September 8, 2023, affirmed.

By the Court (Ditkoff, Singh & Smyth, JJ. 2),

Clerk

Entered: June 16, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.