1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 4
Page 38
CASE NOTES
Emergency hearing regarding transfer of custody of child in need of care and protection may be held ex parte.
Care & Protection of Robert (1990) 408 Mass 52, 556 NE2d 993, 1990 Mass LEXIS 325.
After District Court judge vacated temporary protective order against husband, judge lacked statutory authority to
order expungement of husband's name from statewide domestic violence record keeping system created by St. 1992 ch.
188, § 7. Vaccaro v. Vaccaro (1997) 425 Mass 153, 680 NE2d 55, 1997 Mass LEXIS 121.
Failure to serve defendant with copy of extended abuse prevention order did not deprive District Court of subject
matter jurisdiction and was not required before defendant could be convicted of violating order, where defendant was
served with temporary order at his last and usual place of abode and that order warned that if he failed to appear
extended order may remain in effect. Commonwealth v. Delaney (1997) 425 Mass 587, 682 NE2d 611, 1997 Mass
LEXIS 187, cert den (1998) 522 US 1058, 139 L Ed 2d 655, 118 S Ct 714, 1998 US LEXIS 216.
Testimony before District Court was not sufficient to warrant extension of 209A order entered ex parte 10 days
earlier, where complainant's testimony that she suffered emotionally and experienced aggravation of ulcer condition as
result of receiving defendant's notices of lawsuit and court proceedings did not constitute threat of serious physical harm
or "abuse;" petition for relief under ALM GL c 211, § 3 should have been allowed. Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist.
Court Dep't (1997) 425 Mass 1020, 681 NE2d 817, 1997 Mass LEXIS 174.
Where incarcerated defendant received actual notice of scheduled hearing on extension of temporary protective
order which had been granted ex parte, knew order could be extended, and never expressed desire to exercise his right
to be heard, defendant's due process rights were not violated and his conviction for violation of protective order would
be affirmed. Commonwealth v. Henderson (2001) 434 Mass 155, 747 NE2d 659, 2001 Mass LEXIS 213.
Trial court erred in denying a boy's motion to vacate an order for protection from abuse entered pursuant to ALM
GL c 209A, § 4; trial court erred in finding that the boy and a girl he allegedly sexually assaulted had engaged in a
substantive dating relationship as defined by ALM GL c 209A, § 3, and ALM GL c 209A, § 1(e), as the trial court did not
apply the four factors provided by ALM GL c 209A, § 1(e)(1)-(4) in determining whether a substantive dating
relationship existed, and the trial court erred in refusing to allow the boy to present evidence and cross examine
witnesses at the hearing in question. C.O. v. M.M. (2004) 442 Mass 648, 815 NE2d 582, 2004 Mass LEXIS 665.
District Judge had the inherent authority to expunge a record of a ALM GL c 209A civil abuse protection order
from the statewide domestic violence registry system in the rare and limited circumstance that: (1) the judge found
through clear and convincing evidence that the order was obtained through fraud on the court; (2) neither vacation of the
order, nor sealing of the record was sufficient to protect the integrity of the courts, did not send an appropriate message
to the public, and left a record of the order in the system; and (2) the potential harm to the courts and to the victim of the
order outweighed the governmental interest in maintaining and disseminating the fraudulently obtained order, because it
contained absolutely no informational purpose; however, because the action was initiated by a private plaintiff, ALM GL
c 261, § 14 did not authorize the District Court judge to levy costs against the Commissioner due to the Commissioner's
failure to attend a hearing on a motion to destroy all copies of the ALM GL c 209A order. Comm'r of Prob. v. Adams
(2006) 65 Mass App 725, 843 NE2d 1101, 2006 Mass App LEXIS 262.
Plaintiff could not meet his burden, in action under anti-SLAPP law ( ALM GL c 231, § 59H) to show that
defendant's exercise of her right to petition court for extended orders for protection from abuse was devoid of any
reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law where plaintiff had opportunity to be heard before any temporary
order was extended under ALM GL c 209A, even though he was ultimately acquitted after jury trial for allegedly
violating such order. Franco v. Mudford (2002) 2002 Mass App Div 63, 2002 Mass App Div LEXIS 26.