Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Appeals Court Oral Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears dispute over excluded DCF reports and evidentiary rulings in protective‑order case
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in M.F. v. J.W. (Docket No. 24-P-86) over whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding DCF records and a family action plan that the petitioner said would corroborate threats and abuse alleged in a protective‑order hearing.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in an appeal from a probate‑court protective‑order decision, M.F. v. J.W. (Docket No. 24-P-86), focusing on whether the trial judge abused discretion by excluding two Department of Children and Families (DCF) documents and a family action plan that the petitioner said would corroborate her testimony about threats and past abuse.
Appellants’ counsel Evan Pearcey and Sab Arguello told the panel that a DCF 51(b) report and a family action plan contained corroborative statements—interviews of children, school administrators and the respondent’s spouse—that should have been admitted under the flexible evidentiary approach courts apply in 209A-type hearings. Pearcey said the trial court excluded the materials despite having them marked for identification and that the records contained statements corroborating the petitioner’s testimony that the respondent told others he wanted her dead.
Counsel for the respondent, Danielle Thomason, countered that the records were provided late to the respondent’s counsel, contained extensive redactions and included hearsay that was not presented as business records; she argued surprise and prejudice at the late production justified the exclusion. Thomason also said parts of the DCF record post‑dated the alleged conduct and that the reports contained inconsistent or changing accounts.
Appellate counsel for the petitioner emphasized the trial judge’s one‑sentence adverse credibility finding and argued that excluding corroborative DCF materials deprived the petitioner of supporting evidence that might have affected the judge’s assessment of credibility. The court pressed counsel for both sides on whether the exclusion was rooted in surprise, lateness or evidentiary weight and noted there was no offer of proof on excluded material.
After argument, the panel took the appeal under advisement. The court did not announce a ruling from the bench.
