By Mr. Feeney, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1849) of Paul R. Feeney for legislation relative to court officers injured on duty. Public Service.
By Mr. Oliveira, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1238) of Jacob R. Oliveira for legislation relative to threats of suicide while in court custody (Stavri’s Law). The Judiciary.
By Ms. Jehlen, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 376) of Patricia D. Jehlen for legislation to promote the education success of court involved children. Education.
By Ms. Miranda, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1727) of Liz Miranda for legislation to protect the confidentiality of communications with members of the general court and inmates. Public Safety and Homeland Security.
This bill creates a new legal framework to address abusive lawsuits between family or household members where one party has been found to have committed abuse. It defines "controlling and abusive litigation" as legal actions primarily intended to harass, intimidate, or maintain contact with a victim, often involving repetitive claims or lacking legal merit. Victims can request court orders restricting such litigation, which would require courts to verify abuse history and litigation patterns before imposing penalties. If found abusive, the case is dismissed with prejudice, and the perpetrator must pay all costs, attorney fees, and faces a 48-72 month ban on filing new lawsuits.
This bill (HD 3966) allows certain public safety workers to seek court-ordered HIV testing of individuals who exposed them to blood or bodily fluids during their duties. It directly affects law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, firefighters, EMS personnel, and paramedics. The key provision lets these workers petition a court for an order compelling the testing of the person who caused the exposure; results are shared only with the affected worker and their medical provider. The bill does not change existing HIV testing rules but creates a specific legal process for these workers after exposure incidents.
This bill prohibits courts from ordering unsupervised visitation between parents convicted of specific crimes against minors and their children. It directly affects parents convicted of offenses listed in Chapter 265 (e.g., sexual abuse, child endangerment) and Chapter 272 (e.g., child exploitation, trafficking) of the Massachusetts General Laws. The prohibition applies unless the child is of "suitable age" to consent and a court-appointed guardian ad litem determines the visitation is in the child’s best interest. The bill amends Sections 28 of Chapter 208 and Section 37 of Chapter 209 in the General Laws.
This bill (HD 2417) creates a legal process for people who receive a written notice stating they are no longer welcome on property and would face criminal trespass if they enter. It allows them to file a complaint in district court to cancel the notice if the person who issued it abused their authority over the property. If the court agrees, it will cancel the notice, and the person can use this as a legal defense against any trespass charges. The bill directly affects property owners, tenants, or visitors who receive such disinvitation notices, providing a court-based remedy instead of automatic trespass penalties.
HD 3317, titled "An Act relative to eliminating liability limits for abuse of a minor," amends Massachusetts law to remove financial damage caps in civil lawsuits involving sexual abuse of minors. The bill specifically targets claims defined under Section 4C of Chapter 260 (sexual abuse of a minor) by adding that such cases "shall not be subject to a limitation on damages." This change directly affects victims of minor sexual abuse and their legal representatives in civil court, ensuring they can seek full compensation without financial limits imposed by current law. The key mechanism is a targeted amendment to Section 85K of Chapter 231, overriding existing damage restrictions for these specific claims.
This bill (SD 358) amends Massachusetts' wiretap law to create a legal defense for people who record communications to document threats, harassment, or other crimes in specific family law contexts. It directly affects individuals involved in divorce, child custody disputes, or cases involving protection orders (Chapter 209A or 258E) who record such communications. Key provisions allow recording for these purposes without prosecution, permit disclosure of the recordings, and place the burden of proof on the recorder to show the recording was exempt under the law. The bill applies only to recordings made to document threats/harassment related to family court matters or protection orders, not general communications.