Appeals court hears challenge to renewal of restraining order where judge found no imminent fear

An appellant appearing pro se told the Appeals Court on Feb. 4 that a lower court improperly renewed a two‑year abuse prevention order despite expressly finding the petitioner was not in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. The appellant said the renewal rested on past abuse and ongoing conflict — grounds that, he argued, are insufficient under Massachusetts law for renewal of an abuse‑prevention order.

The appellant recounted a long history of cross‑accusations in family and criminal courts, including multiple criminal complaints that were dismissed and a February 2022 acquittal at Woburn District Court for violation of a restraining order. He told the panel the petitioner had used the order tactically in divorce proceedings and in interactions with the parties’ children’s school to the appellant’s detriment.

During questioning the court asked about the status of parallel divorce proceedings (trial had concluded and decision was pending) and pressed counsel on why a renewal could be justified if the petitioner was not in imminent fear. The appellant cited case law requiring a showing of imminent harm at the time of extension and said the lower court’s decision to renew the order against him while not renewing the petitioner’s reciprocal order was inconsistent and prejudicial.

The court did not announce a ruling at argument and took the matter under advisement.