Man who choked, punched and slapped girlfriend objects to being told he can never contact her again; court says too bad, the order stands

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today upheld a permanent stay-away order for a man who repeatedly abused his girlfriend, culminating in a 2013 incident in which, in a drunken rage, he choked her, stuck his fingers down her throat, punched her several times in the side and in the genitals, slapped her at least 15 times, asked her if she was ready to die and, when she managed to briefly escape and lock herself in the bathroom, broke down the door and pushed her up against the wall and held her there by her neck.

In the weeks following that incident, the man agreed to a restraining order. In the meantime was charged with domestic assault and battery - for which he received a continuance without a finding provided he stay out of further trouble during a five-year probationary period.

A year after getting the first 209A domestic-abuse order, his now ex-girlfriend applied to make the order permanent, and a judge agreed.

The man appealed that ruling saying he had stayed out of trouble and away from the woman, which meant the permanent order was invalid because she had failed to prove she had a "reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm."

Sorry, pal, the appeals court ruled today.

"Reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm" is only one of three possible forms of abuse and reason for a restraining order, the court said: Another is when the defendant is "attempting to cause or causing physical harm."

[T]he plaintiff sought protection because the defendant already had caused actual physical harm to her, which constitutes abuse as defined in G. L. c. 209A, § 1(a). We recognized this distinction in Callahan v. Callahan, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 369, 373-374 (2014). There we said that where the victim already had been subject to physical harm, "the 'abuse' is the physical harm caused, and a judge may reasonably conclude that there is a continued need for [an] order because the damage resulting from that physical harm affects the victim even when further physical attack is not reasonably imminent." ...

"[A]buse occasioned by physical harm may cause wounds that produce long-lasting fear in the victim without new incitements." Callahan, supra at 377. ...

Where there has been actual physical "abuse" within the meaning of G. L. c. 209A, § 1(a), and the victim is still "suffering from" that abuse in that the victim reasonably remains in fear of the abuser, the victim "may file a complaint
in the court requesting protection from such abuse."

And the woman provide sufficient proof that she was still suffering from that abuse - she testified she was reluctant to appear in court with the defendant, that Boston is a small town and that she serves on the board of a local alumni group for the out-of-state college the two attended - where the man's father is a trustee.

Although the defendant himself had not come to any alumni events that the plaintiff had attended, his name was on the list for one such event, and she testified that, as a "precaution, [she] had [her] parents be around the corner [at] every event."

The court also noted the nature of the sentence the man received:

The fact that the defendant here was at liberty on probation at the time of the extension, if anything, heightens the need to protect the victim from the impact of the violence already inflicted.