ASHBURNHAM — On Monday, June 16, 2025, at 5:32 p.m., Officer Scott Cormier of the Ashburnham Police Department was advised that there was a man in the lobby requesting to speak with a police officer.
(The account and quotations in this article were sourced from the printed Personnel Narrative of Officer Scott Cormier, and do not reflect any political perspective or personal opinion of News Link Live, which is strictly a business entity.)
“In the lobby, [the reporting party] explained that he had an active 209A [abuse prevention] order on his ex-wife Dawna Lahtinen,” Officer Cormier recounted. “He explained that he checked his phone today and saw that he had received a text message from Dawna saying ‘miss you.’ I confirmed that this was Dawna’s current cell-phone number and asked [the reporting party] if he knew where she now resided.”
The man said his ex-wife lives in an apartment in Fitchburg. Court documents indicate they’re separated.
Since our launch in February 2022, News Link Live has reached over 2.2 million viewers in Massachusetts and beyond. Interested in a targeted advertising campaign? Contact us at newslinklivealerts@gmail.com or book a consultation call with us through the button below to explore your options today!
According to police Dawna D. Lahtinen, 59, resides on Lunenburg Street in Fitchburg, MA.
“At this time, dispatch confirmed the RO [restraining order] was open and contacted Fitchburg police to advise them of the violation,” Officer Cormier said. “Fitchburg Police responded to the address and brought Dawna into custody.”
After she was taken into custody by Fitchburg police, Officer Cormier responded to the Fitchburg Police Department and took custody of Lahtinen.
“I then transported her (per department policy) in Car #1 back to the station,” Officer Cormier said. “Dawna was booked and secured in Cell #1. Bail Commissioner Marianne Kissane advised that Dawna was not bailable due to the 209A violation.”
Lahtinen was charged with:
- Abuse Prevention Order, Violate
Lahtinen’s arraignment was scheduled for June 17, 2025 in Winchendon District Court.
Disclaimer: If you are wondering why the incident in this story took place in June, that’s because I had to file FOIA request(s) to obtain the court documents. FOIAs are time-consuming.
To learn more about News Link Live’s unique business model, please read the following:
An online business model that could replace local newspapers
Why The Leominster Champion Failed
The Medium is the Message by Marshall McCLuhan
The Ego and the ID by Sigmund Freud
the information stating that his e wife e mail him with statement “m missing you ” is not violent insensitive reaction , most likely she is still married , these order form the court reduce marriage and its rights to criminal violation in this respect the state is causing a trespass in contract of Marriage ( frankly the marriage contract is 3 party contract with the state as a party to the contact as to enforcement , frankly the state causing interference with the parties allowing such orders as to refuse any terms as to speaking on such devices , which record all , This is stupid to arrest wife . i hope judge stated in fact to reduce the text affect in his order and record should show this , if he did not she been arrested without notice to , and violation of her freedom , also no violence was recorded so its waste of time , the judge can be sued over the if the record does not in fact instruct wife as to no use of texting , which is not a physical contact / everyday in jail is worth 50 ,000 write me i have the case law , massvocals@comcast.net
Although your response is largely unintelligible—perhaps because English is your second language (in which case, kudos) or maybe you’re hammered—either way, it does answer a question I had while writing this: the documents indicate they were separated.