Cavanaugh v. Cavanaugh

92 A.3d 200 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W filed a complaint in Family Court seeking protection from abuse. W alleged that she 'suffered abuse when the H' '[p]laced [her] in fear of imminent physical harm' and engaged in 'Stalking, Cyberstalking, [and/or] Harassing.' W was in fear of H because of his 'persistent threatening, swearing, and menacing behavior during pick-up/drop-off times [when they would exchange their child] and phone calls.' W asked the court to enjoin H 'from contacting, assaulting, molesting, or otherwise interfering with [her] * * * .' W detained three incidents after she had filed a motion to modify child visitation. P testified that, on the day her motion was dismissed, she received a phone call from defendant, who, in a 'gruff, seething kind of tone of voice,' said to her: '[A]re, you going to keep f*** with me now?' Sometime after that, H had called her to 'gloat,' stating: 'Don't 'F' with me and my lawyers.' Another time H called her on the phone and said: 'So, you're going to stop talking, you know, s*** about me. Do you understand?' W said she became really scared and called the police in Franklin; she added that an officer then escorted her to the place where she would pick up the child. W also testified that, during the divorce proceedings, H threatened to 'throw [her] cats in the pound' and 'trashed' her piano; she added that, in May of 2012, H 'threw something at [her].' H acknowledged that there had been arguments and that he had resorted to vulgarity during those arguments. H acknowledged that his swearing at W in the midst of a phone call constituted 'harassment,' but he asserted that she had been 'harassing [him] as well.' H was permitted to contact W to facilitate visitation and the exchange of their child should occur at either the North Smithfield, Rhode Island or Franklin, Massachusetts police stations. H appealed claiming that because there was no physical violence the restraining order was improper. The court affirmed. H appealed.