S.J. v. T.S. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
    revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
    volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
    error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
    Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
    Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
    1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
    22-P-944                                             Appeals Court
    S.J.   vs.   T.S.
    No. 22-P-944.
    Middlesex.     May 15, 2023. – August 28, 2023.
    Present:   Sacks, Shin, & D'Angelo, JJ.
    Abuse Prevention. Protective Order. Practice, Civil, Motion to
    dismiss. Words, "Household members."
    Complaint for protection from abuse filed in the Newton
    Division of the District Court Department on March 11, 2022.
    A hearing to extend the abuse protection order was had
    before Jennifer D. Queally, J.
    Kevin M. Dwyer, Jr., for the defendant.
    SHIN, J.     The defendant appeals from an extension of an
    abuse prevention order granted to the plaintiff under G. L.
    c. 209A.1    The sole issue presented is whether the parties -– who
    1 The defendant also appealed from the earlier entered ex
    parte order, but that order was superseded by the order after
    notice and so we do not address it separately. See V.M. v.
    R.B., 
    94 Mass. App. Ct. 522
    , 524-525 (2018). The plaintiff did
    not participate in the appeal, as is his right.
    2
    were college roommates when the events underlying the order
    occurred -- were "household members" within the meaning of G. L.
    c. 209A.   We conclude they were not and thus vacate the
    extension order.
    Background.    The parties were first-year college roommates
    from approximately January to March of 2022.   They had no prior
    relationship and were assigned to be roommates by the
    university.
    On March 11, 2022, the plaintiff applied for an abuse
    prevention order, attaching an affidavit in which he asserted
    the following facts.   The previous day, the plaintiff was in the
    parties' shared dormitory room when the defendant approached and
    hit him on the side of the head.   The plaintiff left the room
    and returned after some time; the defendant then picked him up
    by his shirt, pushed him against the wall, put him on the
    ground, and dragged him to the center of the room.    The
    plaintiff asked what he had done and told the defendant to stop,
    but the defendant did not respond and began to hit the plaintiff
    on the sides of the chest.   The defendant stopped momentarily
    when the plaintiff said he would leave the room.     The defendant
    "resumed his assault," however, when the plaintiff asked for
    permission to retrieve his laptop before leaving.
    After an ex parte hearing, a District Court judge issued a
    temporary abuse prevention order and scheduled the matter for a
    3
    two-party hearing on March 25, 2022.   On the day of the hearing,
    the defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the parties did not
    qualify as "household members" under G. L. c. 209A, § 1.    A
    second judge presided over the two-party hearing, which was
    devoted, more or less exclusively, to the motion to dismiss.
    While noting that the parties were "just college roommates who
    were placed together by the university," the judge nonetheless
    denied the motion to dismiss and extended the temporary order to
    August 29, 2022.2
    Discussion.    General Laws c. 209A, § 3, provides that "[a]
    person suffering from abuse from an adult or minor family or
    household member may file a complaint" for an abuse prevention
    order.   The term "[f]amily or household members" is defined in
    G. L. c. 209A, § 1, as:
    "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) hav[e] 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" (emphasis
    added).
    It is undisputed that the parties here have never been married,
    have never been related by blood or marriage, have no child in
    common, and have never dated or been engaged.   Thus, the
    2 The judge chose this date after the defendant's attorney
    represented that the defendant had taken a leave of absence from
    the university and would not be returning to campus until at
    least the fall semester.
    4
    question is whether they were "residing together in the same
    household" when the alleged abuse occurred.
    Since G. L. c. 209A was enacted, the Legislature has
    broadened the statute's coverage to "address violence stemming
    from relationships which may not be considered traditional
    'family or household' associations."     C.O. v. M.M., 
    442 Mass. 648
    , 653 (2004).   Courts have followed by "recogniz[ing] changes
    in traditional family structures and households for the purposes
    of G. L. c. 209A and have allowed individuals in various types
    of familial relationships to seek protection from abuse from
    family or household members."   Silva v. Carmel, 
    468 Mass. 18
    , 22
    (2014) (collecting cases).   Still, the purpose of G. L. c. 209A
    remains "to prevent violence in the family setting."     
    Id. at 24
    .
    With this statutory purpose in mind, the court held in
    Silva, 
    468 Mass. at 23-24
    , that the phrase "residing together in
    the same household" takes meaning from the other categories of
    "[f]amily or household members" delineated in G. L. c. 209A, § 1
    -- i.e., married or once married persons, relatives by blood or
    marriage, persons who have children together, and persons who
    have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship.
    Viewing the phrase in that context, the court concluded that the
    parties -- who were intellectually disabled adults living in the
    same State-licensed residential facility -- did not qualify as
    "household members" under the statute.    See Silva, 
    supra.
       While
    5
    acknowledging that the facility had "home-like" features, such
    as shared living spaces and house rules, 
    id. at 21
    , the court
    found that to be insufficient to trigger the statute's
    protections where there was no evidence of a "'family-like'
    connection" between the parties.   
    Id. at 22
    .
    At the two-party hearing in this case, the judge suggested
    that Silva was distinguishable because there "the [S]tate put
    [the parties] together," whereas here the parties were
    voluntarily attending the university.     But, while we agree that
    the voluntariness of the living arrangement is a relevant
    factor, we do not read Silva to say that it is the dispositive
    factor.   Nor do we think it should be.   Rather, the wide variety
    of relationships and living arrangements existing today calls
    for a more flexible approach in determining whether two parties
    qualify as persons "residing together in the same household"
    under G. L. c. 209A.   This determination should be made on a
    case-by-case basis after consideration of all relevant factors.
    Cf. C.O., 
    442 Mass. at 651
     ("existence of a 'substantive dating
    relationship' is to be determined on a case-by-case basis").
    These factors may include (1) whether the living arrangement was
    voluntary, (2) the nature of the physical living space,
    including how much of it was shared, (3) the length of the
    parties' relationship, and (4) the nature of their relationship
    and interactions, including whether they engaged in communal
    6
    living activities.   No factor is dispositive, and the ultimate
    inquiry for the judge is whether the parties have a "'family-
    like' connection that falls under the protection of G. L.
    c. 209A."   Silva, 
    468 Mass. at 22
    .
    Turning to the facts of this case, we conclude that the
    parties were not persons "residing together in the same
    household" at the time of the alleged abuse.   Although the
    parties may have been attending the university voluntarily, they
    were not living together voluntarily; they were assigned to the
    same dormitory room by the university.    In addition, they had
    been roommates for only a short time (about two months), and
    there is no evidence in the record about the physical layout of
    the room, such as whether it was a single room or more like a
    suite.   Even presuming that much of it was common living space,
    there is no evidence that the parties prepared and ate meals
    together, engaged in other communal living activities, or had a
    "socially interdependent relationship."   Silva, 
    468 Mass. at 22
    .
    In fact, the plaintiff presented no evidence of any relationship
    he had with the defendant beyond sharing a dormitory room.    As
    the plaintiff thus failed to establish that he had a "'family-
    7
    like' connection" with the defendant, 
    id.,
     he was not eligible
    to seek protection under G. L. c. 209A.3
    Conclusion.   The abuse prevention orders entered against
    the defendant on March 11, 2022, and March 25, 2022, are
    vacated.   The case is remanded to the District Court for the
    entry of an order directing the appropriate law enforcement
    agency to destroy all records of the vacated orders in
    accordance with G. L. c. 209A, § 7, third par.
    So ordered.
    3 This does not leave parties in the plaintiff's situation
    without a remedy. Had the plaintiff sought protection under
    G. L. c. 258E -- which was enacted "to close the gap left by
    G. L. c. 209A," Silva, 
    468 Mass. at
    24 -- he would not have had
    to show that he and the defendant were "household members"
    (although he would have needed to prove "harassment" within the
    meaning of G. L. c. 258E, § 1). Also, as the plaintiff
    acknowledged at the hearing, he could have requested a housing
    transfer from the university. Additional potential remedies are
    referenced in Orla O. v. Patience P., 
    100 Mass. App. Ct. 126
    ,
    130 n.8 (2021).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: AC 22-P-944

Filed Date: 8/28/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/28/2023