Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restraining Order Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant says partial text quote cannot justify 209A coercive-control extension; plaintiff says prior messages and letters show pattern
Summary
In an impound/appeal, the appellant asked the panel to consider the full text message context for a partial quote relied on below and argued the record lacks three concrete incidents required for a coercive-control extension to a 209A order; the plaintiff said there were multiple messages and family-directed communications supporting the extension.
The third argument involved an appeal from an extension of a restraining order where coercive control under 209A was raised. The appellant (referred to in court as 'mister t') moved to file the full text-message materials referenced at the trial because the judge relied on a partial quotation — the phrase "when my job is done" — that the appellant said was taken out of context. The court declined to take copies in the courtroom and later indicated it would not allow the motion at that point.
The appellant pressed that the original proceeding began as a 258E harassment matter and that coercive-control relief under 209A (added effective 09/18/2024) requires different and more specific proof, including discrete incidents; he argued the record lacks the three concrete occurrences the judge asked for and that the partial message was not preserved in the record.
The plaintiff (VB) responded that she relied on prior behavior, described multiple messages (including those sent to a family member), and presented a letter in which the appellant described his conduct and used self-critical language. VB said later communications were limited and sometimes expressed benign sentiment, but that the earlier pattern of messages and a written letter were the basis for relief.
The panel questioned notice and procedural clarity—whether parties and the trial court treated the matter as a 258E or as a 209A coercive-control case—and observed limited probing below on coercive-control elements. The court took the arguments under advisement.
