M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Citation
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Parent Document
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-02-21
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178777/mlm-v-em/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
Full Text
917 charsThe defendant asserts that the judge erred or abused his discretion by extending the order, because the plaintiff's evidence did not show that her fear was reasonable. We are not persuaded. Typically, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739-740 & n.3 (2005). "In evaluating whether a plaintiff has met her burden, a judge must consider the totality of the circumstances of the parties' relationship." Id. at 740. By extending the order, the judge implicitly found that the plaintiff did have such a reasonable fear, and we review that implicit finding for clear error. See Diaz v. Gomez, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 55, 62 (2012). Cf. DeMayo v. Quinn, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 115, 116-117 (2015) (finding that sufficient "harassment" occurred to warrant issuance of G. L. c. 258E order reviewed for clear error).