## Facts

- Mary Smith and Stephen Jones began dating at age thirteen; the relationship later included consensual sexual activity.
- The relationship ended in January 2004, though sexual activity continued intermittently until Jones left school in March 2004.
- Before leaving, Jones sent Smith an email stating he wished he could “stab [her] in the heart.”
- Smith did not take the message literally and did not fear Jones would physically harm her.
- Smith experienced depression and received psychological treatment during the relationship.
- Months after the relationship ended, Smith learned Jones would attend school in the same community and became distressed.
- Smith feared humiliation and unwanted contact or pressure to resume sexual activity, not imminent serious physical harm.
- Smith filed a complaint for an abuse prevention order under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 209A.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence at the ex parte hearing was sufficient to support issuance of a temporary abuse prevention order under G.L. c. 209A.
2. Whether the evidence at the extension hearing was sufficient to establish “abuse” under G.L. c. 209A and justify a one-year extension of the order.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the ex parte order.
- The Appeals Court vacated the one-year extension order.
- The court held that, on the limited emergency record, the ex parte judge could reasonably issue short-term protective relief.
- The court held that the evidence at the extension hearing did not satisfy any statutory definition of “abuse” because Smith did not fear imminent serious physical harm and there was no showing of physical harm, attempted physical harm, or involuntary sexual relations by force, threat, or duress.

## Legal Principles

- G.L. c. 209A authorizes relief only upon proof of “abuse,” defined as: (1) attempting to cause or causing physical harm; (2) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; or (3) causing involuntary sexual relations by force, threat, or duress.
- Ex parte 209A orders may be entered on an emergency, incomplete record to prevent potential harm until an adversary hearing can occur.
- Extension of a 209A order requires a record establishing statutory “abuse”; emotional distress, fear of humiliation, or apprehension about nonviolent consequences is insufficient without fear of imminent serious physical harm or other statutory elements.
- A past angry communication, without the complainant’s fear of physical harm and without evidence of subsequent contact or coercive conduct, does not alone establish “abuse” for a longer-term order.

## Conclusion

The court permitted temporary ex parte protection based on an emergency presentation that could support concern about safety, but it vacated the extended order because the fuller hearing record showed no statutory abuse under G.L. c. 209A.


Smith v. Jones, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 852 N.E.2d 670 (2006)