## Facts

- Faye Ginsberg and Jonathan Blacker were divorced; disputes arose during the sale of the former marital home.
- Over roughly two months, Blacker’s conduct toward Ginsberg became increasingly hostile and erratic, including frequent calls at all hours, uninvited entries into her home, repeated drive-bys, and personal delivery of support checks despite requests to mail them.
- Blacker repeatedly blamed Ginsberg for reducing the home’s asking price, telling her she had “ruined his life,” that the sale would be “the end of [their] family,” and that the “Ginsberg family … should be shot.”
- On February 3, 2005, Blacker entered Ginsberg’s home unannounced while she was preparing dinner with their son and the son’s aide present.
- Blacker became enraged, yelled, paced, pulled his hair, and acted “totally out of control” and “very physically aggressive” toward Ginsberg.
- When asked to leave, Blacker moved into Ginsberg’s face, screaming and waving his hands very close to her, with his face so close she could feel his spit.
- Ginsberg ran upstairs to escape; Blacker followed, shouting obscenities and insults in front of their son and the aide.
- Ginsberg threatened to call 911 if he did not get away; Blacker eventually left.
- At the hearing, Ginsberg acknowledged Blacker had never hit her but testified she feared imminent serious physical harm; Blacker denied the allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported, by a preponderance, that Blacker placed Ginsberg in fear of imminent serious physical harm constituting “abuse” under Massachusetts G.L. c. 209A, § 1, warranting an abuse-prevention order under § 3, despite no prior physical assault.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Probate and Family Court’s abuse-prevention order.
- The court held the trial judge could find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Blacker’s conduct placed Ginsberg in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of prior physical contact barred relief under c. 209A.
- The court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility assessments and evaluation of the total course of conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Under G.L. c. 209A, “abuse” includes placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm, proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A c. 209A order does not require evidence of prior physical assault, injury, or contact; threatening, menacing, and physically intimidating conduct may suffice.
- The reasonableness of fear may be assessed in light of the defendant’s full course of conduct, not a single incident in isolation.
- Appellate review is limited; factual findings and credibility determinations are upheld if supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the abuse-prevention order because escalating threats, persistent harassment, and an out-of-control, close-range confrontation in the plaintiff’s home provided a sufficient basis to find a genuine and reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, even without a prior assault.


Ginsberg v. Blacker, 852 N.E.2d 679 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006)