Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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 had exchanged the child and equipment hundreds of times since without additional violence. Kerhan argued that the probate‑court agreement and the range of available remedies — including contempt proceedings in probate court — made a new or renewed civil‑protective order unnecessary and that the court should not treat long‑past incidents as evidence of an immediate physical threat.
The panel focused on more recent conduct that the petitioner says demonstrates risk: breaches of a parenting‑time protocol, the respondent’s stated intention not to comply with a prior order, and a contested episode where the petitioner reported a helicopter flew over a game and the child allegedly said the respondent had been flying it. The justices questioned whether the respondent’s statements and conduct — including allegedly attending games despite a 50‑yard‑setback rule and not seeking modification in probate court — were sufficient to create an objective risk of imminent physical harm.
Kerhan urged that the correct remedy for noncompliance with a probate‑court order is enforcement in probate court, such as a contempt motion. The petitioner framed the record as showing a pattern of control and intimidation and urged the court to preserve the protective order. The panel took the matter under advisement.
