1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 5
Page 42
Buel and Drew, Do Ask and Do Tell: Rethinking the Lawyer's Duty to Warn in Domestic Violence Cases. 75 U.
Cin. L. Rev. 447 (Winter, 2006).
Web References
ABA Domestic Violence Section, see www.abanet.org/domviol/home.html
ABA Family Law Section, see www.abanet.org/family/home.html
Department of Social Services, see www.state.ma.us/dss/
Legal Information Institute's Divorce Law Overview, see www.law.cornell.edu/topics/divorce.html
Legal Information Institute's Marriage Law Overview, see www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html
Probate and Family Court, see www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/probateandfamilycourt/
CASE NOTES
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.
Personal service of protective order is not required if Commonwealth can show that defendant had actual or
constructive knowledge of existence and terms of court order. Commonwealth v. Molloy (1998) 44 Mass App 306, 690
NE2d 836, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 29, review denied (1998) 427 Mass 1107, 699 NE2d 851, 1998 Mass LEXIS 452.
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.