S.J. v. T.S.

• Docket Number: 22-P-944
• Decision Date: 28 August 2023
• Parties: S.J. v. T.S.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

1

S.J.
v.
T.S.

No. 22-P-944

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex

August 28, 2023

Heard: May 15, 2023.

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.

Present: Sacks, Shin, & D'Angelo, JJ.

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

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

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...