Silva v. Carmel
468 Mass. 18
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant and victim: adults with intellectual disabilities living in a State-licensed residential program funded by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS); each has a legal guardian.
- Incident: defendant pushed victim during an altercation on May 22, 2012, causing injuries; guardians filed for an abuse prevention order under G. L. c. 209A.
- District Court granted an ex parte order and later extended it for one year after a hearing in which guardians testified about prior assaults and the victim’s increased seizures and anxiety.
- Debate: whether co-residents in a State-run licensed facility qualify as “household members” under G. L. c. 209A, § 1 (“residing together in the same household”).
- Trial court found “same household” and issued the order; defendant appealed. The Appeals Court transferred the case to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two unrelated residents of a State-licensed DDS facility are “household members” under G. L. c. 209A § 1 (residing together in same household) | Shared living spaces, home-like program design, and functional similarities to family households make them household members | Residency resulted from State assignment and individualized service plans; residents lack voluntary, family-like social interdependence | No — residents assigned to State-run licensed facilities solely by virtue of services do not qualify as household members under § 1 |
| Whether G. L. c. 209A should be interpreted broadly to include State residential settings given DDS policy to provide home-like settings | Statutory purpose and DDS regulations promoting home-like settings support inclusion | Statutory text and context (enumerated relationships) limit § 1; broader coverage would intrude on DDS’s individualized service plans | Statute must be read in context; enumerated familial relationships inform narrow scope — statute does not extend to this situation |
| Whether the court should assess sufficiency of evidence for the abuse order given dispositive jurisdictional issue | Plaintiff urged safety concerns and evidence of repeated assaults | Defendant argued courts lack jurisdiction under § 1 regardless of evidence | Court did not reach sufficiency; vacated order on statutory scope/jurisdictional ground |
| Whether vacatur requires expungement from statewide registry | Plaintiff did not argue fraud; record should be vacated per § 7 | Defendant sought expungement of records | Order vacated and District Court to notify agency to destroy records of the vacated order, but registry entry not expunged absent fraud; expungement of registry not ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Lewis, 434 Mass. 331 (recognizing nontraditional family relationships can fall under G. L. c. 209A when family-like)
- C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648 (statute does not cover acquaintance or stranger violence; limits on "substantive dating relationship")
- Champagne v. Champagne, 429 Mass. 324 (describing statute’s family-preserving domestic violence purpose)
- O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (noting separate statute G. L. c. 258E provides restraining orders for non-family members)
- Commonwealth v. Jaffe, 398 Mass. 50 (unrelated cohabitants do not necessarily constitute a single family for statutory purposes)
- Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (registry entries for vacated abuse prevention orders are not expunged absent fraud)