MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant appeals from the permanent extension of an abuse prevention order entered on February 12, 2021, in the District Court. He contends that the judge erred in granting the extension because the circumstances presented at the hearing did not warrant a permanent order. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the facts underlying the issuance of the original abuse prevention order.
In June 2019, the plaintiff applied for a restraining order against the defendant. In her affidavit, she stated that the defendant had raped her in May. She also alleged that, in January 2019, the defendant had bit her arm, resulting in a bruise that her doctor later noted in her physical exam. She further asserted that the defendant had told her that she should kill herself because she was a “burden to [her] family” and that “he would kill [her] if [she] wouldnt do it.” He then detailed the various ways he could kill her without getting caught.
Discussion. The requirements for extending a G. L. c. 209A order are well established. See G. L. c. 209A, § 3; E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558, 561-563 (2013); Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739-740 (2005); G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 393 (2018). We review the extension “for an abuse of discretion or other error of law.” E.C.O., supra at 561-562.
The District Court judge did not err in permanently extending the order where the plaintiff did not explicitly request a permanent order.
2
General Laws c. 209A, § 3, provides that if, upon expiration of the initial order, the plaintiff appears in court, “the court shall determine whether or not to extend the order for any additional time reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff or to enter a permanent order.” The duration of the extension was therefore within the judges discretion. The defendant cites to no legal authority holding otherwise, and his argument is not persuasive.
3
Furthermore, the circumstances supported the permanent extension. Contrary to the defendants argument that the plaintiffs failure to show imminent danger of abuse vitiated her need for an extension, when a plaintiff seeks an extension of an abuse prevention order “based on having already been subject to physical harm,” the “ ‘abuse’ is the physical harm caused, and a judge may reasonably conclude that there is a continued need for the order because the damage resulting from that physical harm affects the victim even when further physical attack is not reasonably imminent.” Callahan v. Callahan, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 369, 374 (2014). In making this assessment, the judge “must consider the totality of the parties’ relationship.” Id., quoting Iamele, 444 Mass. at 740.
At the time of the extension, the parties’ divorce had become final, and no ongoing contact was needed with regard to the financial settlement. The defendant testified that he had had no contact with the plaintiff since the initial order, that he now spends most of his time out of State, and that he did not want to have any further contact with the plaintiff. “[O]bedience alone[, however,] is not a ground for refusing an extension.” Iamele, 444 Mass. at 738. Furthermore, it is of no consequence that the biting, the rape, and the threats took place in 2019. We have affirmed the extension of c. 209A orders based on incidents that occurred years earlier. See Yahna Y. v. Sylvester S., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 185, 187 (2020); Vittone v. Clairmont, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 489 (2005) (“The infliction of some wounds may be so traumatic that the passage of time alone does not mitigate the victims fear of the perpetrator”). Here, in addition to the past physical abuse, the judge noted that the “threats ․ frankly are lasting[ ] because the spectacle of it is just horrific.” Accordingly, “[t]he judge could reasonably conclude that the damage from [these events] still affected the plaintiff and that an [extension] was necessary to protect her from the impact of that abuse.” Yahna Y., supra at 187.
Order dated February 12, 2021, permanently extending G. L. c. 209A order affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2
. The defendant contends that the plaintiff requested a one-year extension. In fact, when the plaintiff requested an extension, she did not specify a duration. However, at the previous extension hearing on February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs counsel had requested a permanent extension.
3
. The defendant also maintains that the allegations upon which the initial order issued were “typical of allegations made during the course of divorce proceedings where conflict is at its highest.” However, he is not free to now challenge the evidence supporting the initial order in an extension proceeding such as this. See Iamele, 444 Mass. at 740 (“The judge is to consider the basis for the initial order in evaluating the risk of future abuse should the existing order expire [but] [t]his does not mean that the restrained party may challenge the evidence underlying the initial order”).