## Facts

- Tracy MacDonald previously obtained an order of protection against Kevin James Caruso in New York.
- In 1995, MacDonald left New York after Caruso allegedly threatened to kill her and relocated to Massachusetts.
- In 1999, MacDonald sought an ex parte abuse prevention order under Massachusetts law after receiving unusual mail postmarked from the region where Caruso lived, some appearing to be in his handwriting.
- MacDonald also reported that Caruso used her social security number and forged her signature to obtain a credit card in her name, resulting in a delinquency notice for an unpaid balance.
- The Massachusetts abuse prevention order was extended multiple times and was made permanent in 2001, requiring Caruso to refrain from abuse or contact, stay away from MacDonald’s residence, and surrender firearms and ammunition.
- Caruso did not appeal the issuance of the permanent order.
- In 2011, Caruso moved to terminate the permanent order, citing the passage of time, his compliance with the order, retirement, relocation to Utah, and remarriage.
- The Probate and Family Court denied the motion, finding Caruso failed to show a significant change in circumstances or that MacDonald no longer needed protection; the Appeals Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. What standard applies when a restrained party seeks to terminate a permanent abuse prevention order under Massachusetts law?
2. Whether Caruso proved, under the proper standard, that the permanent order should be terminated.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Caruso’s motion to terminate the permanent abuse prevention order.
- The court held the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a significant change in circumstances makes continued enforcement inequitable because the protected party no longer has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm.
- The court concluded the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in determining Caruso failed to meet that burden based on the totality of the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to terminate a permanent abuse prevention order bears the burden of proof.
- Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of a significant change in circumstances such that continued enforcement is no longer equitable because the protected party no longer has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm.
- Passage of time and compliance with the order, without more, are insufficient to establish the required change in circumstances.
- The protected party’s absence or silence at a termination hearing does not shift the burden and should not be treated as consent to termination.
- Appellate review of a denial of a motion to terminate is for abuse of discretion, assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court held that terminating a permanent abuse prevention order requires clear and convincing evidence of significant changed circumstances showing the protected party no longer reasonably fears imminent serious physical harm, and it affirmed denial of termination where the restrained party relied largely on time, compliance, relocation, retirement, and remarriage.


MacDonald v. Caruso, 5 N.E.3d 831 (Mass. 2014)