258E Guideline 6:06: Mutual Harassment Prevention Orders

Part of the Guidelines of Judicial Practice: Harassment Prevention Proceedings.

Guideline 6:06

A mutual harassment prevention order should only be issued in the rare circumstance when both parties are suffering from harassment, having proved that circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence, and both are genuinely in need of protection from such harassment.

Mutual orders also include orders sought by a defendant against a plaintiff, i.e., where the same parties reverse roles, and the defendant now seeks an order in a later court proceeding or in a different jurisdiction. See Sommi v. Ayer, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 207, 209-210 (2001).

If the second order is sought in the same court that issued the first, the court has three options, depending upon the court’s findings: 

1. if the standard for issuance of an order has not been met, decline to issue an order;
2. if the court finds a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment and the hearing after notice on the first order has not yet been held, issue the order and either make it returnable on the date scheduled for the hearing in the first case or on a different date; or,
3. if the standard for an ex parte hearing is not met, defer to the hearing on the second order until a hearing with all parties is held. 

See Guideline 6:05 Modification of Orders; Terminating Orders; Expungement Standard. If, at the hearing, relief to both parties is warranted, mutual orders may be issued.

If the second order sought is in a different court (second court) than the court that issued the first order (first court), then the second court has the following three options depending upon its findings: 

1. if it finds that the standard for issuance of an order has not been met, decline to issue an order;
2. if it finds a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment and the hearing after notice in the first court has not yet been held, the second court may issue the order and ask the departmental Chief Justice (or, if the courts are in different departments, the Chief Justice of the Trial Court) to transfer the second matter to the first court on the date scheduled for the hearing; or,
3. the second court may schedule the complaint for a hearing after notice in the second court.

Commentary

If mutual orders issue, the police must have clear instructions about how it is to be enforced. For example, an order requiring A to stay away from B’s address and B to stay away from A’s address can be enforced. However, an order which orders both A and B to stay fifty yards away from one another may be more difficult, because the responding officer often may not be able to determine who approached whom. As such, in some cases it may be better to order each defendant to stay away from specific locations, rather than order a specific distance.

Orders from different courts involving the same parties in reverse roles are considered “mutual orders.” The second court, considering a complaint filed by a party who is already the subject of a previous order, cannot amend or supersede the first order. Its order, if any, will run only in favor of the new plaintiff. The second court cannot change the first order unless the first order has been transferred to the second court.

In those cases in which two different courts within the same department have venue over the different plaintiffs, the Chief Justice of that department may transfer the second case to the original court so that one judge can hear cases for both courts and decide which, if any, orders should issue. If two courts in different court departments have venue over the different plaintiffs, a request may be made to the Chief Justice of the Trial Court to transfer one of the cases to the other court so that one judge can hear both cases.

If the plaintiff in the second case is seeking relief in the same court that issued the first order, the judge should consider whether the plaintiff is actually seeking to file a motion for modification in that pending case, or if the relief, if ordered, involves protection of that party and therefore must result in a mutual harassment prevention order.

Chapter 258E does not expressly provide for the issuance of mutual orders. But see G.L. c. 209A, § 3. If the court determines that mutual orders should issue, the court should ensure close scrutiny of any conflicting evidence presented. See Nelson N. v. Patsy P., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 78, 81 (2020). The court must find that each party has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are suffering harassment by the other party and that the resulting harassment prevention orders are warranted. The judge should indicate on the record the critical facts found “regarding key disputed issues, typically including what [harassment] the defendant has committed, and why an order to prevent further [harassment] by that defendant is warranted.” Id. at 81-82. The judge should ensure that any resulting order is sufficiently detailed and specific to apprise a law officer as to which party has violated the order. See G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

Last updated:	October 20, 2025