Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears dispute over renewal and scope of 209A protection order tied to parenting‑time conflicts
Summary
In a civil protective‑order appeal (m m v. m j m), defense counsel argued past incidents were remote and that contempt or probate remedies, not a new 209A order, were the appropriate remedy; the court pressed counsel on whether statements about refusing to follow a court order and actions at youth sporting events created imminent risk.
The Appeals Court heard argument in a contested domestic‑protection appeal (listed under initials) over whether an abuse‑prevention order should remain in place after a long history of domestic‑relations proceedings and whether recent conduct by the respondent created an imminent risk of physical harm.
Dana Kerhan, counsel for the respondent, said the incidents relied on by the petitioner were several years old and the parties…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
