E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558

Parent sought extension of a 209A abuse prevention order on behalf of his 16-year-old daughter against Gregory Compton.
Ex parte order issued under G. L. c. 209A, § 4, was extended for one year under § 3.
Judge found abuse and/or a substantive dating relationship; defendant appealed.
Records showed electronic communications (e-mails, IM, Skype, Facebook) with intimating, romantic content.
Daughter was under 18; defense conceded no physical harm or involuntary sex; no proven abuse under §1(a)-(c).
Court vacated the extension, but concluded there was evidence of a substantive dating relationship for instructional purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there abuse under 209A §1(a)-(c)?	Father argued abuse existed based on conduct and relationship.	Compton argued no abuse; no physical harm or involuntary sex.	No abuse established under §1(a)-(c).
Was there a substantive dating relationship under §1(e)?	There was a three-month, intimate, online-and-face-to-face relationship.	Not necessary to find dating relationship at issue.	There was sufficient evidence of a substantive dating relationship.
May the extension order be sustained without abuse?	Extension justified by relationship dynamics.	No basis for extension absent abuse.	Extension vacated because no abuse found.

Commonwealth v. Finase, 435 Mass. 310 (Mass. 2001) (abuse prevention statute: abuse proven by preponderance of evidence)
C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648 (Mass. 2004) (remedial purpose of 209A; broad interpretation of abuse/relationship)
Caplan v. Donovan, 450 Mass. 463 (Mass. 2008) (parenth. on standard of review and 209A application)
Jordan v. Clerk of the Wesfield Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 425 Mass. 1016 (Mass. 1997) (abuse need not be physical; preponderance standard for civil order)
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 1), 389 Mass. 128 (Mass. 1983) (protective purposes for juveniles in dating contexts)