1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 3
Page 21
result of receiving defendant's notices of lawsuit and court proceedings did not constitute threat of serious physical harm
or "abuse;" petition for relief under ALM GL c 211, § 3 should have been allowed. Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist.
Court Dep't (1997) 425 Mass 1020, 681 NE2d 817, 1997 Mass LEXIS 174.
Probate Court may issue domestic relations protective order during pendency of divorce proceeding to prohibit
party from imposing restraint upon personal liberty of other party, to order spouse to vacate marital home, and for
temporary relief from actual abuse or immediate threats of physical harm. Champagne v. Champagne (1999) 429 Mass
324, 708 NE2d 100, 1999 Mass LEXIS 136.
Probate and Family Court has authority to issue or extend permanent protective orders in final judgments to
married parties, separated parties, and unmarried parties with children. Champagne v. Champagne (1999) 429 Mass
324, 708 NE2d 100, 1999 Mass LEXIS 136.
Judge in District Court or any court with jurisdiction of request for protective order is empowered to issue
permanent protective order at renewal hearing. Crenshaw v. Macklin (2000) 430 Mass 633, 722 NE2d 458, 2000 Mass
LEXIS 12.
District Court judge erred in ruling that she had no power to issue permanent protective order at renewal hearing
and in refusing to entertain request for such order; case remanded for reconsideration. Crenshaw v. Macklin (2000) 430
Mass 633, 722 NE2d 458, 2000 Mass LEXIS 12.
Paternal grandmother of child whose parents were not married is "related by blood" to child's mother, and thus has
right to invoke protection from domestic abuse under ALM GL c 209A. Turner v. Lewis (2001) 434 Mass 331, 749
NE2d 122, 2001 Mass LEXIS 329.
Trial court erred in denying a boy's motion to vacate an order for protection from abuse entered pursuant to ALM
GL c 209A, § 4; trial court erred in finding that the boy and a girl he allegedly sexually assaulted had engaged in a
substantive dating relationship as defined by ALM GL c 209A, § 3, and ALM GL c 209A, § 1(e), as the trial court did not
apply the four factors provided by ALM GL c 209A, § 1(e)(1)-(4) in determining whether a substantive dating
relationship existed, and the trial court erred in refusing to allow the boy to present evidence and cross examine
witnesses at the hearing in question. C.O. v. M.M. (2004) 442 Mass 648, 815 NE2d 582, 2004 Mass LEXIS 665.
Evidence consisting of assault victim's affidavit in support of application for 209A abuse prevention order and
order, both identifying defendant as assailant, and police officer's serving of order on defendant were not admissible in
prosecution for assault and battery under judicial notice doctrine or official records exception to hearsay rule, where
victim was available, did not testify, and was not subject to cross-examination; conviction violated article 12 of
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.Commonwealth v. Kirk (1995) 39 Mass App 225, 654 NE2d 938, 1995 Mass App
LEXIS 754.
Findings of District Court judge were insufficient to justify revocation of defendant's probation imposed after he
pleaded guilty to violating ALM GL c 209A protective order, where only evidence was that another court had revoked
probation for unknown violations on unknown dates. Commonwealth v. Michaels (1996) 39 Mass App 646, 659 NE2d
1209, 1996 Mass App LEXIS 14.
Judge's order for defendant not to "contact" former girlfriend in person, by telephone, in writing, or otherwise was
not unconstitutionally vague. Commonwealth v. Butler (1996) 40 Mass App 906, 661 NE2d 666, 1996 Mass App LEXIS
99.
Defendant who arranged for flowers to be sent to former girlfriend violated "no contact" order. Commonwealth v.
Butler (1996) 40 Mass App 906, 661 NE2d 666, 1996 Mass App LEXIS 99.
Protestations of "nonhostile intent" or "desire to make amends" are irrelevant to enforcement of no-contact order.