This is an appeal by Rex, R. (the Husband) from an order by the trial judge extending Nan, N.’s (the Wife) c. 209A restraining order against the Husband, finding that it was necessary to protect the Wife from the likelihood of “abuse,” both in terms of “coercive control, and due to being in “reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm” by the Husband.
Factual Background: Husband and Wife were married in 1996 and had four (4) children. Husband is an attorney and Wife was a stay at home. The family’s finances were under Husband’s immediate control. In December 2022, Husband moved down to Florida, leaving Wife and their children in Massachusetts who would later join him in August 2023. The Parties’ relationship became toxic and hostile soon thereafter, with Husband often acting aggressively and violently towards Wife. By way of example, Husband would frequently follow Wife around the house, often cornering her in their laundry room, the smallest room in the house. On one occasion, Husband pushed Wife against their lit stove while yelling at her after she told him she was filing for divorce.
Husband moved out of their home in January 2024 and the couple never lived together again. From there onward, Husband’s behavior towards Wife continued to accelerate. He would often threaten. Stating that “he wasn’t going anywhere and “could come in and [get] her day or night because it’s his house.” He would also use the home’s security cameras to watch both Wife and the children. The day after he learned that Wife was going to file for divorce, Husband removed $100,000 form their joint checking account and canceled Wife as an account holder on several of their joint credit cards. At one point, Husband entered the home crying and stated that he had suicidal ideation.
The Parties entered a joint stipulation for parenting time, which also provide that Wife and the children can have sole use and occupancy of the Parties’ Massachusetts home. Wife and the children would move back to Massachusetts on June 1, 2024. Husband’s access to this property was limited to by invitation only, per the same joint stipulation. This did not stop Husband from attempting to contact Wife, who he texted daily, sometimes several times a day. Eventually, he told her that he will be coming to Massachusetts to stay at the home on March 27, 2025. Wife sought a c. 209 Abuse Prevention Order on March 26, 2025, in anticipation of Husband’s arrival via an ex parte hearing. At the ensuing 10-day hearing, the court held an evidentiary hearing whereafter they extended the order for two (2) years.
Discussion and Analysis: The lower court found that Husband’s conduct met three of the statutory definitions of abuse: 1) he had attempted to cause Wife physical harm, 2) placed her in fear of imminent serious physical harm, and 3) coercively controlled her. Husband appealed the lower court’s order, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the Judge’s findings (which he claimed was entirely based around him having “coercively controlled” Wife), and that the trial judge misapplied the definition of “coercive control.”
Husband argued that the court misapplied the “coercive control” theory, because it retroactively applied it to factual circumstances which predated the 2024 amendment. However, the Appeals Court found that it was ultimately irrelevant if Husband’s argument was correct. The record demonstrated behavior which supported Wife’s assertion that she “suffered abuse through reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm and required protection because of such abuse,” which alone was enough to succeed on her burden.
The evidentiary standard for a c.209A is predicated on the “totality of the circumstances” which includes conduct that is physically verbally, emotionally, and economically abusive. The lower court’s findings were all encompassing in this regard. The record contains various specific examples over the course of two years that demonstrate Husband’s behavior was “abusive” towards Wife so far as it placed her in “fear of imminent serious physical harm” whether it be psychological or verbal abuse. Including the Parties’ behavior during the hearing. Particularly that of Wife, who was “visibly shaking” during the proceedings, and refused to make eye contact with Husband at any point.
Hence, the record was sufficient to prove Wife’s burden as to the court’s finding of abuse and that Husband placed the Wife in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. However, the court remanded the matter to the lower court with regard to their initial ruling to extend the c. 209A order. Whether “coercive control” is sufficient on its own accord as a theory, and whether it can be retroactively applied is still undetermined. What is clear though is that so long as the record contains enough evidence to satisfy the other theories of “abuse” under c.209A, even where it does support a finding of “coercive control.”