Massachusetts Restraining Order and Harassment Prevention Order Appeals: The Week of October 19, 2026

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center

October 26, 2026

In the week of October 19, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided a group of cases about abuse prevention orders under G. L. c. 209A and harassment prevention orders under G. L. c. 258E. One of the decisions, Kehlani K. v. Tripp T., is a published opinion that applies the coercive control definition the Legislature added to c. 209A in 2024. The others are summary decisions under Appeals Court Rule 23.0, which a court may cite for persuasive value but not as binding precedent.

Together the decisions show how District Court and Probate and Family Court judges apply the two statutes, and how the Appeals Court reviews an extension, a sufficiency challenge, and a criminal charge for violating an order. This article summarizes each decision and the practical point a reader on either side of an order can take from it.

The Published Decision on Coercive Control

In Kehlani K. v. Tripp T., No. 25-P-960 (Oct. 22, 2026), the Appeals Court upheld the one-year extension of an abuse prevention order on a finding of coercive control. The court held that the husband’s repeated presence around the plaintiff’s home, his monitoring of her movements, and his photographing of her calendar formed a pattern he intended to use to compel her to drop the divorce. A plaintiff can prove abuse through coercive control without proving a fear of imminent serious physical harm.

Abuse Prevention Order Extensions Under Chapter 209A

In S.S. v. A.C.G., No. 26-P-75 (Oct. 22, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed the extension of an abuse prevention order. A plaintiff who seeks an order or an extension must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, and a fear of imminent serious physical harm must be both reasonable and current. Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734 (2005).

The court held that the parties’ relationship and the plaintiff’s affidavits showed a reasonable and current fear of imminent serious physical harm. The court did not decide whether the evidence would have been enough on a coercive control theory alone, noting that coercive control sets a lower threshold than fear of imminent serious physical harm. See Nan N. v. Rex R., 106 Mass. App. Ct. 601 (2026). As a Rule 23.0 decision, S.S. is persuasive only.

In A.M. v. C.J.M., No. 25-P-1565 (Oct. 20, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed the five-year extension of an abuse prevention order. The defendant argued that he lacked reasonable notice of the extension hearing and that the judge denied him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The court held that the defendant had two years’ notice of the hearing date because he was present when the court set it, and that he did not request a continuance at the hearing or explain how the late service of the plaintiff’s motion prejudiced him. The court also held that the judge did not limit his cross-examination but instead clarified that the plaintiff was not required to produce privileged medical records.

As a Rule 23.0 decision, A.M. is persuasive only. A respondent who believes a late filing prevents a fair hearing should request a continuance on the record and state the specific prejudice at that time.

Harassment Prevention Orders Under Chapter 258E

In D.M. v. A.M., No. 25-P-969 (Oct. 21, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed the extension of a harassment prevention order. A harassment prevention order under G. L. c. 258E requires three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person, committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property, that in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property.

The court held that the defendant’s repeated calls and visits to the plaintiff’s workplace and the threatening statements the District Court judge recited were three or more acts of harassment, and that the plaintiff moved to a different work location out of fear. As a Rule 23.0 decision, D.M. is persuasive only.

In E.A. v. A.N.N., No. 25-P-1436 (Oct. 20, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed a harassment prevention order and did not decide whether the evidence was sufficient. The defendant argued for the first time on appeal that the evidence did not support the order. The court held that the defendant waived that argument because the judge offered him a hearing on whether the order should issue and the defendant told the judge that he did not object to the order.

As a Rule 23.0 decision, E.A. is persuasive only. A respondent who contests an order must object at the District Court hearing, because a respondent who agrees to the order forfeits a later challenge to the evidence.

Criminal Charges for Violating a Protective Order

In Commonwealth v. Rosenfield, No. 25-P-591 (Oct. 22, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed a conviction for violating a harassment prevention order under G. L. c. 258E, § 9. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient because he did not personally install the surveillance cameras that pointed at the protected neighbor’s home.

The court held that the evidence allowed the judge to find that the defendant intended or shared the intent to install the cameras, based on his earlier threat to install cameras so the neighbor would have no privacy, the placement of a camera aimed at her bathroom window and hot tub, and his presence during the installation.

The Commonwealth may prove a violation by proving that the defendant intended that another person commit the prohibited act. As a Rule 23.0 decision, Rosenfield is persuasive only.

In Commonwealth v. Griffin, No. 24-P-1404 (Oct. 23, 2026), a summary decision, the Appeals Court affirmed convictions that included assault and battery on a family or household member under G. L. c. 265, § 13M, violation of an abuse prevention order under G. L. c. 209A, § 7, and witness intimidation under G. L. c. 268, § 13B.

The court upheld a probation condition of GPS monitoring for the full term of probation. The court held that the judge balanced the Commonwealth’s interest in rehabilitation and public protection against the defendant’s privacy interest and reasonably imposed the condition given the defendant’s violation of the order and his conduct while under earlier supervision.

The court also held that the evidence supported the witness intimidation conviction, because the jury could infer from a letter the defendant sent that he intended to prevent the victim from testifying. As a Rule 23.0 decision, Griffin is persuasive only.

Key Takeaways

• Kehlani K. v. Tripp T., No. 25-P-960 (Oct. 22, 2026), is a published decision upholding the extension of a 209A abuse prevention order on a finding of coercive control, and a plaintiff can prove abuse through coercive control without proving a fear of imminent serious physical harm.
• S.S. v. A.C.G. affirmed the extension of a 209A abuse prevention order on a reasonable and current fear of imminent serious physical harm and did not decide whether coercive control alone would have been enough.
• A.M. v. C.J.M. affirmed a five-year extension of a 209A abuse prevention order and held that a respondent who claims unfair surprise must request a continuance and state the specific prejudice on the record.
• D.M. v. A.M. affirmed the extension of a 258E harassment prevention order on a finding of three or more acts of harassment, and E.A. v. A.N.N. held that a respondent who tells the judge he does not object to the order forfeits a later sufficiency challenge.
• Commonwealth v. Rosenfield affirmed a conviction for violating a 258E harassment prevention order where the defendant intended that another person install the cameras, and Commonwealth v. Griffin upheld a full-term GPS probation condition and a witness intimidation conviction.
• S.S., A.M., D.M., E.A., Rosenfield, and Griffin are Rule 23.0 summary decisions, so counsel should cite them for persuasive value only and rely on published authority as binding.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

• Coercive Control at a Chapter 209A Extension Hearing: Kehlani K. v. Tripp T.
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Orders (Abuse Prevention Orders): Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders: Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• Criminal Violation of a 209A Abuse Prevention Order
• Criminal Violation of a 258E Harassment Prevention Order
• Massachusetts 209A Extension Hearings: Evidence and Burden