The appeals panel heard argument over whether a judge properly extended a restraining order protecting children without taking live testimony at the extension hearing, and whether an appeal is moot when later extension orders remain in effect.

Anne O'Connor, representing the appellant (Mister G), said the judge extended the order after asking lawyers for their opinions rather than taking evidence and that the appellant had no opportunity to call witnesses. O'Connor argued the record did not show the judge relied on evidence presented at the hearing and asked the panel to consider precedent that vacated extension orders when current circumstances were not supported by evidence before the court.

Julie Gallop, for the Department of Children and Families, told the panel the department had filed a motion (styled a motion in limine) with an affidavit from a maternal aunt describing ongoing child fear and an alleged violation; she said those materials were in the court file and that the judge had a right to consider them at the extension hearing. Gallop cited Singh v. Capuano, 468 Mass. 328 (2014), to explain that subsequent orders can affect an appeal’s posture and argued that a recent affidavit and docket entries provided sufficient basis for extension.

Scott Anderson, counsel for the children, emphasized fairness as the core test under Frezado (and related precedents), arguing the late‑filed affidavit gave the court notice and that contested hearings in other entries of the file show a more complete record existed for earlier proceedings; he said the judge’s consideration of filings in the court file was appropriate in context.

Why it matters: The dispute implicates standards for restraining‑order extension hearings in juvenile and family contexts — whether a judge may rely on court‑file materials and counsel representations without taking live testimony, and how appellate review should treat extensions when later orders remain in effect.

Key points from argument
- Appellant’s position: Anne O'Connor argued the extension hearing produced no evidence in court; the judge asked counsel for opinions rather than taking testimony, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to rebut affidavits or call witnesses; she cited Bana v. Bana and other precedent and asked the court to rule the extension an abuse of discretion.
- Department and children’s counsel: Gallop and Anderson said the motion and affidavit were properly before the court; Gallop argued the department’s filings and the existing docket entries supplied sufficient information and that the appellant had an opportunity to respond; Anderson stressed the fairness test and the totality of filings across multiple contested hearings.
- Mootness/justiciability: Judges on the panel questioned whether an appeal of an earlier extension is moot if a subsequent, still‑in‑effect order remains; Gallop cited Singh v. Capuano to argue there may be limits to appellate review when underlying orders are superseded without objection.

Quotations (verbatim)
"The defendant must have an opportunity to establish in court that the order was wrongfully issued," appellant counsel Anne O'Connor told the panel.
"I think that that is a reason to reach the merits of of an appeal," Julie Gallop replied, pointing to the risk that continuous extensions could prevent review.

Court status and next steps
Argument concluded and the case was submitted. The panel will issue an opinion addressing whether the extension hearing satisfied fairness and evidence requirements and whether the appeal remains justiciable given subsequent orders.

Speakers (from the argument record)
- Anne O'Connor — Appellant's counsel (private)
- Julie Gallop — Attorney for the Department of Children and Families (government)
- Scott Anderson — Counsel for the children (private, representing children)
- Presiding justice and panel members — bench (government)

Authorities and materials referenced
- Singh v. Capuano, 468 Mass. 328 (2014) — referenced by DCF counsel regarding succession of orders and appeals
- Bana v. Bana — cited by appellant counsel for extension‑hearing standards
- Frezado and related juvenile/fairness precedents — referenced by children's counsel

Clarifying details and docket context
- Counsel referenced multiple prior contested hearings (2023 and 2025) and a motion in limine filed roughly ten days before the extension hearing attaching an affidavit from the maternal aunt.
- Appellant argued the judge asked counsel for their opinions at the hearing rather than taking live evidence.

Searchable tags: restraining order, DCF, juvenile court, evidence, fairness, appeal