209A Restraining Order DENIED: A Rooming House Is Not a “Household”

An applicant has to clear a jurisdictional threshold before a judge can issue a 209A restraining order at all — and most people never hear about it.

August 10, 2026 | Restraining Order Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

The Result

In Plaintiff v. Defendant, Docket No. 2662 RO 1303, the application for a 209A restraining order against my client was DENIED. The judge never reached the question of whether anything happened. The application failed at the threshold, because the applicant was not a person the abuse prevention statute protects.

What the Case Was About

My client and the applicant lived in the same rooming house. That was the entirety of their relationship. They were not married and never had been. They were not related by blood or marriage. They had no child in common. They had never been in a dating or engagement relationship.

They shared an address. Nothing else.

The Threshold Question in Every 209A Restraining Order Case

First, a point that surprises almost everyone: a 209A proceeding is a civil case, not a criminal one. There is no prosecutor. The applicant is a private party who files an application and carries the burden — which is why these cases are captioned for example: Smith v. Jones, not Commonwealth v. Jones. The criminal exposure comes later, if an order issues and is then violated.

Chapter 209A is also not a general-purpose protective statute. It was written to prevent violence in the family setting, and it reaches only a defined class of people. G.L. c. 209A, § 1 defines “family or household members” as persons who:

• are or were married to one another;
• are or were residing together in the same household;
• are or were related by blood or marriage;
• have a child in common, regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together; or
• are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship.

If the applicant does not fall into one of those five categories, no court has authority to issue a 209A restraining order — no matter what the applicant says happened. This is jurisdictional. It comes before the facts, before credibility, before everything.

Why Sharing an Address Is Not “Residing Together in the Same Household”

The obvious argument from the other side is category (b): they lived under the same roof, so they were residing together in the same household. Massachusetts appellate courts have squarely rejected that reading.

In Silva v. Carmel, 468 Mass. 18 (2014), the Supreme Judicial Court considered two intellectually disabled adults placed by the Department of Developmental Services in the same State-licensed residential program. One injured the other, and a District Court judge issued an order on the theory that they lived in the same household. The SJC vacated it, holding that individuals who live together because they share a common diagnosis or status — rather than because of marriage, blood, or another enumerated relationship — are not “household members” under the statute. The phrase contemplates a family-like, socially interdependent relationship. Silva, 468 Mass. at 22.

The Appeals Court applied that rule to a fact pattern much closer to a rooming house in S.J. v. T.S., 103 Mass. App. Ct. 166 (2023). Two college students were assigned to the same dormitory room by their university. One struck the other. The Appeals Court held they were not residing together in the same household — they had not chosen to live together, they had been roommates only a couple of months, and there was no evidence they shared meals, communal living activities, or any socially interdependent relationship.

The considerations the courts look to in a contested 209A restraining order case include:

• Whether the living arrangement was voluntary or assigned
• How long the parties have lived in the arrangement
• The physical layout — separate private quarters versus genuinely shared living space
• Whether the parties cooked and ate together or shared communal domestic life
• Whether the relationship is socially interdependent in a family-like way

No single factor decides it. The ultimate question is whether the parties have the kind of family-like connection c. 209A was written to protect. S.J. v. T.S., 103 Mass. App. Ct. at 170, quoting Silva, 468 Mass. at 22.

A rooming house fails nearly every one of those considerations. Tenants rent separate private rooms from a landlord. They do not choose their neighbors. They keep their own hours, buy their own food, and often never speak to one another. A rooming house is a building, not a household.

I raised the jurisdictional issue. The judge agreed. The application was DENIED.

Why a 209A Restraining Order Is Worth Fighting

There is a persistent belief that a restraining order is not a big deal — that it is only a piece of paper telling you to stay away from someone you had no intention of contacting anyway. That belief has put a lot of people in handcuffs.

Once a 209A restraining order issues, it creates criminal exposure that did not exist before. Conduct that is entirely lawful for everyone else — sending a text, walking down a particular street, being in the same store — becomes a criminal offense for you. A violation is charged under G.L. c. 209A, § 7. The order also carries consequences for firearms licensing, and it generates a court record that follows you.

In a rooming house case, the practical stakes are higher still: an order can put a tenant out of his own home.

THE BEST WAY TO NOT BE ARRESTED FOR A VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS TO NOT HAVE THE ORDER ISSUE.

That is the entire point. Every fight about a violation, every arrest, every arraignment on a § 7 charge, traces back to an order that issued in the first place. The hearing is where the case is won.

A Fair Note on the Other Side

A denial on jurisdictional grounds is not a finding that nothing happened. It is a finding that c. 209A was the wrong statute. Someone in that position is not without a remedy — the Legislature enacted the harassment prevention order statute, G.L. c. 258E, to close exactly this gap, and it does not require any household or family relationship at all.

That is worth understanding if you are on the receiving end of a denied application, because the matter may not be over.

Facing a 209A Restraining Order Hearing in Massachusetts?

These hearings move fast, and they are frequently the most consequential ten minutes a person will spend in a courtroom. Many respondents show up alone, assume the judge will sort it out, and leave with an order that reshapes their life. The jurisdictional argument that won this case would never have been raised by anyone but defense counsel.

If you have been served with an application for a 209A restraining order in Worcester County, Middlesex County, or anywhere in Massachusetts, call me at (508) 393-4162 before your hearing date.