Mitchell v. Mitchell
2005 Mass. App. LEXIS 36, 821 N.E.2d 79, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 769 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To vacate a domestic abuse prevention order, the moving party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the order is no longer needed to protect the victim from harm or a reasonable fear of serious harm. Evidence that the protected party initiated contact after the order was issued is generally insufficient, by itself, to meet this high burden.
Facts:
- Mary Mitchell suffered over ten years of verbal and physical abuse from her husband, James Mitchell.
- After Mary obtained a one-year abuse prevention order against James, James's mother died in Los Angeles.
- At the invitation of James's family, who assured her safety, Mary traveled to Los Angeles to attend the funeral services.
- During the trip for the funeral, Mary and James spent some time together, both with family and, on two occasions, alone in a car and at a movie.
- James also alleged that Mary had contacted him repeatedly by telephone after the order was issued.
- Mary contested James's characterization of the events, stating she did not voluntarily choose to be alone with him, remained in fear of him, and only initiated contact regarding the parties' pets.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Mitchell filed a complaint for protection from abuse against James Mitchell in the Probate Court.
- The Probate Court issued an ex parte abuse prevention order on December 20, 2001.
- Following a hearing at which both parties were present, the Probate Court extended the order for one year, until January 3, 2003.
- On June 20, 2002, James Mitchell filed a motion to reconsider or vacate the extended order in the same Probate Court.
- The Probate Court judge granted the motion and vacated the abuse prevention order.
- Mary Mitchell (appellant) appealed the vacatur to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's evidence of post-order contact initiated by the protected party constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant vacating a G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order?
Opinions:
Majority - Duefly, J.
No. A defendant's evidence of post-order contact by the protected party is insufficient to vacate an abuse prevention order without a clear and convincing showing that the order is no longer needed to protect the victim from harm or fear of harm. The court analyzed the request to vacate under two frameworks. First, for a retroactive vacatur based on 'new evidence,' the evidence must be material and likely to have changed the original outcome, not merely impeach the victim's credibility, a standard the husband's evidence failed to meet. Second, for prospective termination, the court established a flexible standard where the moving party's burden increases with the potential risk to the protected party's safety. To terminate an order entirely—the highest-risk modification—the moving party must show by clear and convincing evidence that circumstances have changed so significantly that the order is no longer necessary. The husband's evidence of sporadic contact, much of it occurring under the unusual circumstances of a family funeral, did not satisfy this heavy burden.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Massachusetts domestic violence law by creating a clear, high-level standard for vacating an abuse prevention order where the statute itself is silent. The court's adoption of a flexible 'continuum' standard, culminating in a 'clear and convincing' evidence requirement for total termination, provides strong protection for victims. This decision makes it difficult for defendants to undo protective orders based on a victim's subsequent contact, recognizing the complex dynamics of abusive relationships. It solidifies the principle that the primary focus must remain on the victim's safety and reasonable fear, rather than on post-order conduct that might not accurately reflect a diminished threat.
