Hey, there! Log in / Register

Stalkers can reform themselves, court rules

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today a lower-court judge was wrong to permanently bar a man from contact with a former lover and her daughter, because there is no evidence he is still barraging her with "thousands" of phone calls and that if she begins to feel physically threatened, she can always file for a new temporary protective order.

The court acknowledged that it was wrong for the Florida man, whom it dubbed Robert, to call the Massachusetts woman repeatedly after she told him she was ending their relationship and returning to her husband in 2005.

The woman, dubbed Agnes, got a one-year restraining order against him, which she appealed successfully to renew each year until 2008, when a judge granted her a permanent injunction. Robert, who had not contested the earlier injunctions, fought this one - in particular the provision he stay away from the woman's daughter.

The court agreed with him:

On this record, the defendant's improper behavior was directly tied to his refusal to accept that the couple's lengthy romantic relationship was over and that the plaintiff preferred to stay with her husband. As this case well illustrates, making a judgment as to when a previously justified fear ceases to be reasonable can be difficult. As a general matter, it is important that we defer to the judge who heard the evidence in making these sorts of difficult assessments. Here, however, the judge's decision to enter a permanent order cannot reasonably be justified by the record that existed when that order entered. In view of the fact that it has now been almost four years since the breakup, we decline to remand the case for reconsideration. In the event that the plaintiff continues to believe that she has an objectively reasonable fear of imminent physical violence, she is free to file a new petition.

Complete ruling.

Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!