People use the word "abuse" loosely. Massachusetts law does not. Under G.L. c. 209A § 1, "abuse" has a specific definition, and a judge can only issue or extend an abuse prevention order if the conduct fits one of three categories. Understanding those categories is the single most important thing for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The statutory definition
Section 1 defines "abuse" as the occurrence of one or more of the following between family or household members:
- (a) Attempting to cause or causing physical harm.
- (b) Placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
- (c) Causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat, or duress.
That's the whole list. If the conduct doesn't fit one of these three, it is not "abuse" for 209A purposes — no matter how upsetting it was.
(a) Physical harm — or an attempt
This is the most straightforward category. Hitting, shoving, choking, throwing something at a person, or any attempt to do so qualifies. Note that an attempt counts even if it misses. What does not fit here is purely emotional or financial conduct with no physical component.
(b) Fear of imminent serious physical harm
This category is where most contested cases live, and it has three words that do a lot of work: imminent, serious, and physical. Massachusetts courts have held that the fear must be reasonable and must be of harm that is about to happen — not a general unease, not anger, not the ordinary stress of a bad breakup, and not fear of non-physical harm. A vague worry that someone "might do something someday" generally does not meet the standard. The plaintiff's fear also has to be objectively reasonable, not just sincerely felt. Cases such as Commonwealth v. Gordon and Iamele v. Asselin shape how judges apply this prong.
(c) Coerced sexual relations
The third category covers being made to engage in sexual relations involuntarily by force, threat, or duress. This is its own independent path to an order.
Where coercive control fits
Patterns of controlling behavior — isolation, monitoring, threats, financial control — have drawn increasing attention from Massachusetts courts and lawmakers in recent years. How and whether such a pattern supports a 209A order on its own is an evolving area, and the exact statutory language can change. If coercive control is central to your situation, confirm the current state of the law with a Massachusetts attorney rather than relying on a general summary.
Why the definition matters so much
For a plaintiff, it tells you what you actually need to show: tie each incident to one of the three categories, and for fear-based claims be ready to explain why the fear was of imminent, serious, physical harm. For a defendant, it is often the heart of the defense: an argument, hurt feelings, rude words, or a difficult relationship are not "abuse." If the conduct alleged does not fit category (a), (b), or (c), the order should not issue.
Not a family or household member?
Remember that abuse is only half the test — 209A also requires a qualifying relationship. If there is no family, household, or dating relationship, the right tool is usually a c. 258E harassment prevention order instead, which our sister site harassmentorder.com prepares.