McIsaac v. Porter
90 Mass. App. Ct. 730
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff and defendant were long-term dating partners; in December 2013 the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, causing bruises and other injuries documented by photographs.
- Plaintiff obtained an ex parte G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order in late January 2014; the order was extended (with defendant's agreement) until January 2015.
- The defendant was criminally charged for the December 2013 incident and received a CWOF with five years’ probation; restitution remained unresolved.
- At the January 2015 renewal hearing the plaintiff testified she continued to be afraid of the defendant because of the prior violent incident and sought to make the 209A order permanent.
- Defense counsel attempted to introduce and probe text-message contacts from January 2014 to show the plaintiff was not then (and therefore not now) genuinely afraid; the judge limited that cross-examination and excluded the texts.
- The judge made the 209A order permanent; defendant appealed, arguing (1) extension was improper without a finding of reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, and (2) the judge improperly limited cross-examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a c.209A order may be extended/permanent based solely on continuing fear from past physical abuse (§1(a)) | McIsaac: past serious physical harm can produce continuing fear justifying extension | Porter: extension requires a current reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm (§1(b)) | Court: Extension may be based on continuing fear from past physical abuse; a finding of fear of imminent harm is not required where §1(a) abuse occurred. |
| Whether judge abused discretion by limiting cross-examination about plaintiff's January 2014 texts | McIsaac: prior ambiguous conduct has limited relevance to current fear; relitigation of initial order improper | Porter: texts show plaintiff was not truly fearful and are relevant to risk now | Court: No abuse; judge permissibly limited relitigation and excluded minimally probative prior conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dollan v. Dollan, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (2002) (interpreting §1(b) as focused on preventing imminent serious physical harm)
- Callahan v. Callahan, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 369 (2014) (extension may protect victim from continuing impact of past physical harm under §1(a))
- Vittone v. Clairmont, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 479 (2005) (past wounds can cause long-lasting fear warranting protection)
- Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734 (2005) (court should consider basis of initial order but restrained party may not relitigate it at renewal)
- Quinn v. Gjoni, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 408 (2016) (trial judge may place limits on cross-examination in c.209A proceedings)