Skip to main content

209A Protections not available to Residents of DDS Residential Programs

The Abuse Protection statute in Massachusetts M.G.L. c. 209A, often referred to as a restraining order, does not apply to all relationships.  You cannot obtain a restraining order protecting you from anybody.  The statute limits the protections to individuals suffering from abuse by "family or household members" which is defined in the statute as follows:
“Family or household members”, persons who:

(a) are or were married to one another;
(b) are or were residing together in the same household;
(c) are or were related by blood or marriage;
(d) having a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together; or
(e) are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship, which shall be adjudged by district, probate or Boston municipal courts consideration of the following factors:
(1) the length of time of the relationship; (2) the type of relationship; (3) the frequency of interaction between the parties; and (4) if the relationship has been terminated by either person, the length of time elapsed since the termination of the relationship. - M.G.L. c. 209A § 1
SJC refuses to expand this definition 
beyond family relationships.

The SJC recently reiterated their refusal to expand this definition beyond family relationships except as required by the language of the statute.

The recent appeals case of Silva v. Carmel, SJC-11438 (2014) limited section (b) of this definition.  In the Silva case, the SJC was asked to overturn an order from a District Court Judge who had awarded an Abuse Prevention Order against a defendant who resided in the same State-governed residential program as the victim.  The case turned on whether two parties residing in a state residential facility could be considered "residing together in the same household."    The SJC decided it cannot.

The Court points out that "the defendant and the victim were not voluntarily living together" and they were "assigned to the residence by a government agency."  The SJC determined that to include individuals in these facilities as living with the definition of a "household" under c. 209A would be too restrictive on the State agency, but also not within the language of the statute.

It is unclear from the decision whether the victim was unable to obtain suitable protections from the Department of Developmental Services but the footnotes indicate the defendant lost housing and support from the department due to the restraining order.  This suggests the Department was unable or unwilling to accommodate one of the parties in a different facility.  The SJC has essentially pushed the issue back to that Department, indicating that a 209A restraining order can't be used for protection of the victim in this case.  Hopefully, the Department finds a way to provide services to both, without endangering the victim.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2024 U.S. Presidential Party Platforms - What are the policy positions that could affect families?

While the laws that affect family formation, marriage and divorce are often made at the state level, there are also many policies and laws at the federal level that affect families and children.  Just some examples from recent years that have impacted families in my mediation practice include changes to the federal tax laws (such as  the elimination of the alimony tax deduction ) and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage and reproductive health rights.  In just over a month, the United States presidential election will have a significant impact on these federal policies going forward, and could choose the next appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court as well. In 2016 and 2020 we shared what each presidential platform said about families and policy regarding family formation and dissolution, and below we'll provide you an update on the 2024 presidential platforms.  As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."...

Updating your Divorce Agreement Template - More Lessons from Cavanagh v. Cavanagh

We recently posted a lengthy review of the the Massachusetts SJC decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2002)  which included some recommendations for drafting divorce agreements, also typically called Separation Agreements.  The Cavanagh case is best known for it's clarification of how the courts should evaluate support calculations when a case may have both alimony and child support.  However, the case also contained numerous rulings that should make practitioners review their Separation Agreement templates and change some of the ways in which they may have previously drafted certain sections. In this post we'll share actual language from the Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC form Separation Agreement template which addresses each of the issues raised by the Cavanagh decision.  If you are a professional interested in purchasing the full Separation Agreement template, check out Gray Jay's  forms subscription which includes editable Massachusetts court forms and financial st...

Massachusetts Family Court Financial Statement - Instructions & Best Practices

During a divorce, or other case in the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court that involves your finances, such as a child support case, you will likely be required to file a court form Financial Statement.  In Massachusetts there are two versions of this form: a "short form" if your income is under $75,000 and a "long form" if your income is $75,000 or more.  Many people find these forms confusing and we've compiled a list of helpful information for filling them out. First , to access the forms, the court has provided pdf or online versions here: Massachusetts Rule 401 Short Form Financial Statement (pdf) Massachusetts Rule 401 Long Form Financial Statement (pdf) There are also some basic instructions provided by the court explaining the sections of the forms and providing access to a Schedule A (for self-employed people) and Schedule B (for rental income): Massachusetts Rule 401 Short Form Financial Statement Basic Instructions Massachusetts Rule 401 Long F...