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-429
S.G.
vs.
W.S.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, W.S., appeals from an order extending a
G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention order issued against him
following a full hearing. He challenges the extension of that
order and further argues that the hearing judge erred in denying
his motion to dismiss the c. 258E order based on forum non
conveniens and his motion in limine seeking to preclude the
admission of evidence of his conduct prior to June 2, 2023. We
affirm.
On August 9, 2023, at the request of the plaintiff, S.G., a
temporary c. 258E order was issued against W.S. following an ex
parte hearing. In her affidavit supporting her application for
the order, S.G. alleged that since the couple moved from Massachusetts to New York in 2019, W.S. began to subject her to
verbal and sexual abuse and engaged in "coercive control."1 This
coercive control included W.S. electronically surveilling S.G.
by logging into her Google account to monitor her location.
W.S. would also frequently verbally abuse S.G. by screaming at
her "inches from [her] face" in the presence of their child.2
In May of 2023, S.G. alleged that when the couple was
staying in their New York apartment, W.S. "incessantly yelled at
me and berated me" in front of the child for multiple days
straight, and that she and the child "were in a constant state
of anxiety of fear." During this time, W.S. would "grab" the
child to prevent S.G. from leaving the apartment with him.
Finally, on May 24, 2023, S.G. and the child fled New York and
returned to Massachusetts. S.G. then sought and obtained a
temporary G. L. c. 209A order against W.S. from the Probate and
Family Court. The day before the full hearing on the c. 209A
order, S.G. received a notification that W.S. had added firearm
accessories to their joint Amazon account shopping cart,
including a laser sight for a handgun he owned. S.G. alleged
that W.S. knew that she received notifications from the account
1 S.G. and W.S. were married in 2021.
2 S.G. stated in her affidavit that this abuse had a significant impact on the child, who became uncomfortable around other children at school and ultimately refused to attend kindergarten.
2 and believed that W.S. was intentionally threatening her on the
eve of the c. 209A hearing. On June 2, 2023, S.G.'s request for
an extension of the c. 209A order was denied following full
hearing. However, the probate court judge did enter an order by
agreement between S.G. and W.S. (June order) that granted S.G.
occupancy of their home in Massachusetts while W.S. would have
occupancy of their New York apartment. The order also allowed
S.G. to travel with the child to Mexico for one month in the
summer.
Before S.G.'s departure to Mexico, W.S. repeatedly messaged
her telling her that she was not permitted to take the child to
Mexico. During a phone call, W.S. threatened to report her
travel with the child to Mexico as kidnapping and said he would
get law enforcement to prevent them from leaving the country.
This call was followed by "11 text messages with personal
attacks and verbal harassment." When S.G. and the child arrived
in Mexico, W.S. threatened to report to Mexican police that S.G.
had abducted the child. W.S. stated that he would stop
threatening to call the Mexican authorities if S.G. allowed him
to travel to Michigan with the child.
S.G. alleged that while she and the child were in Mexico,
W.S. broke into her Massachusetts law office using keys he had
stolen, rummaged through personal and legal documents, and
removed a computer and multiple car keys from the office. W.S.
3 also entered the Massachusetts home, purportedly to pick up some
summer clothes, in violation of the June order and while the
home was occupied by tenants. S.G. further stated in her
affidavit that W.S. stole approximately $25,000 of her personal
belongings from their apartment in New York.
On November 7, 2023, following two agreed-upon
continuances, a District Court judge conducted a hearing on
S.G.'s request to extend the c. 258E order. Both parties
appeared and were represented by counsel. At the start of the
hearing, the judge denied both W.S.'s motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens and his motion in limine seeking to
preclude testimony of events occurring prior to June 2, 2024.
The c. 258 hearing then continued, and S.G. testified to the
incidents addressed in her affidavit and her counsel introduced
a series of exhibits, including mailed letters, text messages,
and other digital communications from W.S. S.G. also testified
that while the temporary c. 258E order was in effect, W.S.
mailed three postcards addressed to the child to her law office.
W.S. also mailed a large envelope to S.G. containing a book
titled, "Don't Hurt Me, Mama," and a letter written by W.S. that
focused on calling S.G. a bad mother who hurts her son. S.G.
also testified that during this time, W.S. constantly sent her
"abusive and intimidating" messages through their
"OurFamilyWizard" account, which, by court order, was to be used
4 exclusively to communicate about parenting the child. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the judge found there was ample
evidence to support the issuance of the c. 258E order and
extended the order for one year.3
Discussion. To begin, W.S. asserts that his motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens was improperly denied because
the Probate and Family Court, where the parties divorce case is
pending, "is more suited to handle this matter." General Laws
c. 258E, § 2, provides that "[p]roceedings under [the statute]
shall be filed, heard and determined in the superior court
department or the respective divisions of the district court
department . . . having venue over the plaintiff's residence."
The Probate and Family Court does not have jurisdiction over
such proceedings. To prevail on forum non conveniens grounds, a
defendant must show both the existence of an alternative forum
and "that 'the balance of private and public concerns strongly
favor' that alternative forum." M.K. v. D.B., 102 Mass. App.
Ct. 183, 188 (2023), quoting Gianocostas v. Interface Group-
Mass., Inc., 450 Mass. 715, 723 (2008). Here, W.S. demonstrated
neither the existence of an alternative forum nor that the
alternative forum had better access to the parties or witnesses.
3 W.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-429
S.G.
vs.
W.S.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, W.S., appeals from an order extending a
G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention order issued against him
following a full hearing. He challenges the extension of that
order and further argues that the hearing judge erred in denying
his motion to dismiss the c. 258E order based on forum non
conveniens and his motion in limine seeking to preclude the
admission of evidence of his conduct prior to June 2, 2023. We
affirm.
On August 9, 2023, at the request of the plaintiff, S.G., a
temporary c. 258E order was issued against W.S. following an ex
parte hearing. In her affidavit supporting her application for
the order, S.G. alleged that since the couple moved from Massachusetts to New York in 2019, W.S. began to subject her to
verbal and sexual abuse and engaged in "coercive control."1 This
coercive control included W.S. electronically surveilling S.G.
by logging into her Google account to monitor her location.
W.S. would also frequently verbally abuse S.G. by screaming at
her "inches from [her] face" in the presence of their child.2
In May of 2023, S.G. alleged that when the couple was
staying in their New York apartment, W.S. "incessantly yelled at
me and berated me" in front of the child for multiple days
straight, and that she and the child "were in a constant state
of anxiety of fear." During this time, W.S. would "grab" the
child to prevent S.G. from leaving the apartment with him.
Finally, on May 24, 2023, S.G. and the child fled New York and
returned to Massachusetts. S.G. then sought and obtained a
temporary G. L. c. 209A order against W.S. from the Probate and
Family Court. The day before the full hearing on the c. 209A
order, S.G. received a notification that W.S. had added firearm
accessories to their joint Amazon account shopping cart,
including a laser sight for a handgun he owned. S.G. alleged
that W.S. knew that she received notifications from the account
1 S.G. and W.S. were married in 2021.
2 S.G. stated in her affidavit that this abuse had a significant impact on the child, who became uncomfortable around other children at school and ultimately refused to attend kindergarten.
2 and believed that W.S. was intentionally threatening her on the
eve of the c. 209A hearing. On June 2, 2023, S.G.'s request for
an extension of the c. 209A order was denied following full
hearing. However, the probate court judge did enter an order by
agreement between S.G. and W.S. (June order) that granted S.G.
occupancy of their home in Massachusetts while W.S. would have
occupancy of their New York apartment. The order also allowed
S.G. to travel with the child to Mexico for one month in the
summer.
Before S.G.'s departure to Mexico, W.S. repeatedly messaged
her telling her that she was not permitted to take the child to
Mexico. During a phone call, W.S. threatened to report her
travel with the child to Mexico as kidnapping and said he would
get law enforcement to prevent them from leaving the country.
This call was followed by "11 text messages with personal
attacks and verbal harassment." When S.G. and the child arrived
in Mexico, W.S. threatened to report to Mexican police that S.G.
had abducted the child. W.S. stated that he would stop
threatening to call the Mexican authorities if S.G. allowed him
to travel to Michigan with the child.
S.G. alleged that while she and the child were in Mexico,
W.S. broke into her Massachusetts law office using keys he had
stolen, rummaged through personal and legal documents, and
removed a computer and multiple car keys from the office. W.S.
3 also entered the Massachusetts home, purportedly to pick up some
summer clothes, in violation of the June order and while the
home was occupied by tenants. S.G. further stated in her
affidavit that W.S. stole approximately $25,000 of her personal
belongings from their apartment in New York.
On November 7, 2023, following two agreed-upon
continuances, a District Court judge conducted a hearing on
S.G.'s request to extend the c. 258E order. Both parties
appeared and were represented by counsel. At the start of the
hearing, the judge denied both W.S.'s motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens and his motion in limine seeking to
preclude testimony of events occurring prior to June 2, 2024.
The c. 258 hearing then continued, and S.G. testified to the
incidents addressed in her affidavit and her counsel introduced
a series of exhibits, including mailed letters, text messages,
and other digital communications from W.S. S.G. also testified
that while the temporary c. 258E order was in effect, W.S.
mailed three postcards addressed to the child to her law office.
W.S. also mailed a large envelope to S.G. containing a book
titled, "Don't Hurt Me, Mama," and a letter written by W.S. that
focused on calling S.G. a bad mother who hurts her son. S.G.
also testified that during this time, W.S. constantly sent her
"abusive and intimidating" messages through their
"OurFamilyWizard" account, which, by court order, was to be used
4 exclusively to communicate about parenting the child. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the judge found there was ample
evidence to support the issuance of the c. 258E order and
extended the order for one year.3
Discussion. To begin, W.S. asserts that his motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens was improperly denied because
the Probate and Family Court, where the parties divorce case is
pending, "is more suited to handle this matter." General Laws
c. 258E, § 2, provides that "[p]roceedings under [the statute]
shall be filed, heard and determined in the superior court
department or the respective divisions of the district court
department . . . having venue over the plaintiff's residence."
The Probate and Family Court does not have jurisdiction over
such proceedings. To prevail on forum non conveniens grounds, a
defendant must show both the existence of an alternative forum
and "that 'the balance of private and public concerns strongly
favor' that alternative forum." M.K. v. D.B., 102 Mass. App.
Ct. 183, 188 (2023), quoting Gianocostas v. Interface Group-
Mass., Inc., 450 Mass. 715, 723 (2008). Here, W.S. demonstrated
neither the existence of an alternative forum nor that the
alternative forum had better access to the parties or witnesses.
3 W.S. elected to assert his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and did not testify at the extension hearing.
5 Accordingly, the hearing judge did not abuse his discretion in
denying W.S.'s motion to dismiss based upon forum non
conveniens. See Gianocostas, supra (decisions to grant or deny
motions to dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens reviewed
for abuse of discretion).
W.S. also argues that the judge erred in denying his motion
in limine which sought to preclude any evidence relating to
W.S.'s conduct prior to June 2, 2023, alleging that such conduct
was already litigated in during the c. 209A order hearing in the
Probate and Family Court and therefore subject to collateral
estoppel. However, because orders under G. L. c. 209A and G. L.
c. 258E rest on different showings, conduct that may be
insufficient to support a c. 209A order may very well be
sufficient to support an order under c. 258E. Compare Yasmin Y.
v. Queshon Q., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 252, 256 (2022), with Yahna Y.
v. Sylvester S., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 186 (2020). Therefore,
we disagree with W.S. that collateral estoppel applies, and we
also discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's denial of the
motion in limine. See Wilhelmina W. v. Uri U., 102 Mass. App.
Ct. 634, 639 n.11 (2023). Furthermore, collateral estoppel
would not apply to the extent S.G. introduced material new
evidence of harassment at the extension hearing, which she did
in this case. See G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 397-398
(2018).
6 Finally, turning to the merits, W.S. contends that S.G.
failed to prove a prima facie case of harassment under G. L.
c. 258E, § 3, because she did not prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that W.S. committed three or more acts of
harassment as defined by G. L. c. 258E, § 1. We disagree.
We review a judge's decision whether to extend a c. 258E
order for an abuse of discretion or other error of law. See
Yasmin Y., 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 256. The standard for
extending a c. 258E order is whether the plaintiff has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an
extension is reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff from
further harassment. See G. L. c. 258E, § 3. The justification
for extending the order varies depending upon the basis on which
the order was granted. See Yasmin Y., supra at 256-257.
However, "[m]ost harassment prevention orders are granted based
on [three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed
at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear,
intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact
cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property"
(quotation and citation omitted). Id. at 256. See G. L.
c. 258E, § 3.
Here, the judge credited S.G.'s testimony and found that
W.S.'s alleged acts of harassment were "corroborated by
7 documentation, including but not limited to text messages."4
Indeed, contrary to W.S.'s argument, S.G. testified to a good
deal more than three acts of harassment within the meaning of
G. L. c. 258E, § 1. Therefore, we also discern no abuse of
discretion in the judge's extension of the c. 258E order.
Order entered November 7, 2023, extending harassment prevention order affirmed.
By the Court (Desmond, Ditkoff & Englander, JJ.5),
Clerk
Entered: May 6, 2025.
4 "We accord the credibility determinations of the judge who heard the testimony of the parties . . . the utmost deference" and find no reason not to do so here (citation omitted). E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558, 562 (2013).
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.