Unnamed Case
434 Mass. 331, 749 NE 2d 122 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of a domestic abuse protection statute, two individuals are considered "related by blood" if they share a common blood relation to a third person, such as a child, even if they are not directly related to each other.
Facts:
- The plaintiff is the paternal grandmother of a ten-year-old child whose parents were never married.
- The grandmother has legal custody of the child, and the child resides with her.
- The child's mother (the defendant) has visitation rights with the child.
- On September 2, 1999, the mother entered the grandmother's home unannounced and without permission.
- The mother, who appeared to be under the influence, yelled for the child.
- When the grandmother tried to descend a staircase, the mother blocked, punched, and pushed her, causing the grandmother's head to hit a windowsill.
- The mother threatened the grandmother, hit her again, and then fled the scene.
- The grandmother then telephoned the police for assistance.
Procedural Posture:
- The paternal grandmother (plaintiff) filed a pro se complaint in the Probate and Family Court seeking protection from abuse from the child's mother (defendant) under G. L. c. 209A.
- A judge of the Probate and Family Court granted the grandmother an emergency protective order.
- A different judge in the same court later declined to extend that order, ruling that the parties were not related by blood, marriage, or household membership as required by the statute.
- The grandmother filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.
- The grandmother (appellant) appealed both the denial of the extension and the denial of her motion for reconsideration.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted the grandmother's application for direct appellate review.
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 the relationship between a child's paternal grandmother and the child's mother, where the parents were never married, qualify as being "related by blood" under the Massachusetts domestic abuse protection statute, G. L. c. 209A, thereby allowing the grandmother to seek a protective order against the mother?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
Yes. The parties are "related by blood" for the purposes of the statute because they are both directly related by blood to the same child. The court reasoned that the paternal grandmother is related by blood to the child through her son, and the mother is also related by blood to the child. This common blood relationship through the child connects the grandmother and the mother. This broad interpretation is consistent with the legislative purpose of G. L. c. 209A, which is to prevent violence in family settings and to broadly define eligibility for protection. The court noted that modern family structures are varied and evolving, citing the rise in grandparent-headed households, and that these arrangements can force individuals into unwanted contact, necessitating legal protection. Therefore, interpreting the statute to cover this relationship serves the public policy of protecting individuals from domestic abuse in the reality of modern family life.
Dissenting - Cowin, J.
No. The parties are not "related by blood" under the intended meaning of the statute. The dissent argued that the legislative history demonstrates a narrower intent. A 1986 amendment to the statute explicitly distinguished between a "blood relative" and a person who is "unrelated by blood" but is the parent of the plaintiff's child. This indicates the legislature considered unmarried parents to be unrelated by blood to each other. If a child's own biological parents are considered "unrelated by blood" under the statute's logic, then a paternal grandmother and the child's mother cannot be considered related by blood. The dissent concluded that the majority was improperly engaging in judicial activism by basing its decision on evolving social policy and recent census data, rather than the statutory language and history. According to the dissent, expanding the statute's coverage is a task for the legislature, not the court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of "family or household members" under Massachusetts's domestic violence protection statute. It establishes a precedent that a blood relationship can be established indirectly through a common third party, moving away from a requirement of a direct consanguineous link between the plaintiff and defendant. This ruling provides greater access to protective orders for individuals in non-traditional family structures, particularly for grandparents who act as primary caregivers. The case exemplifies a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, where the court prioritizes the statute's overall goal of preventing domestic abuse over a stricter, more literal reading of its text and history.
Unlock the full brief for Unnamed Case