J.C. v. J.H. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-119-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 15-P-1612 Appeals Court J.C. vs. J.H.[1] No. 15-P-1612. Essex. November 14, 2016. – September 14, 2017. Present: Sullivan, Maldonado, & Neyman, JJ. Civil Harassment. Harassment Prevention. Protective Order. Statute, Construction. Evidence, Intent, Presumptions and burden of proof. Practice, Civil, Burden of proof, Presumptions and burden of proof. Firearms. Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Lynn Division of the District Court Department on October 14, 2014. A hearing to extend the harassment prevention order was had before Albert S. Conlon, J. J.H., pro se. Christine I. Wetzel for the plaintiff. SULLIVAN, J. The defendant, J.H., appeals from a civil harassment prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E.[2] He contends that his former girl friend, the plaintiff, J.C., did not prove three or more acts of harassment as defined by G. L. c. 258E, § 1. He further contends that the judge was without authority to order the surrender of his firearms. For the reasons that follow, we vacate so much of the order as required the defendant to surrender his firearms. Background. We summarize the facts consistent with the judge’s findings and rulings based on the affidavits filed and the testimony given at the hearing on the extension of the harassment prevention order. The defendant initiated a relationship with the plaintiff in August of 2010 after meeting her at an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. The plaintiff ended their relationship in April of 2013. After the relationship ended, the defendant made the plaintiff “very uncomfortable.” The plaintiff changed her activities to avoid him. She did so because he was “pushy” and “suggested [they] get together for sex,” even though she said no and repeatedly stated the relationship was over. She attended a different AA meeting and switched to a different yoga studio than the one she had frequented when she was with the defendant. The defendant continued to contact the plaintiff. He sent her text messages, and she responded that she wanted to be left alone. In July of 2013, the plaintiff received a series of text messages from the defendant.[3] In the first message, the defendant texted, “You should be scared. I know where you practice yoga. See you at yoga, bitch!” The plaintiff asked him not to contact her, and sought the assistance of the police, who […]