The Appeals Court heard oral argument in AM v. Kilometers over a permanent restraining order that, as defense counsel described it, bars the father from independently speaking with or being physically present with his children outside supervised contact.

Merrick Schnipper, defense counsel for the appellant identified in the transcript as Kilometers, told the court the order “permanently bars Kilometers from ever independently speaking with or interacting with his children outside of his wife's… supervision,” and emphasized that the children are currently about 12 and 8 or 9 years old. Schnipper argued the record contains only a limited set of allegations dating to October 2018 and a 2019 incident and that the 2022 ex parte affidavit does not establish the statutory abuse standard required to criminalize ordinary parent‑child contact.

“There's simply no standard… under which you can leave in place… a permanent bar on in‑person contact with your children,” Schnipper told the panel, asking the court to vacate the orders or otherwise find the restriction unsupported by independent evidence in the record.

The mother's attorney, Dana Kerhan, countered that the father did not appear to contest the initial order in the lower court or the 2023 extension and that the record shows incidents placing the child at risk. Kerhan described two particular episodes the mother relied on — an October 2019 incident in which the father allegedly grabbed the son from a car and punched the mother, and an event on Jan. 21, 2022 when the father allegedly removed a child from the home in cold weather without appropriate clothing, prompting the mother to seek the initial restraining order — and cited multiple alleged violations and problems with the father's compliance, including failed or refused drug testing and communications outside permitted channels. "He has contacted the children… and there are communications outside of the permitted mechanisms," Kerhan said, adding that supervised visitation and other family‑court mechanisms remain available to restore contact if the father follows the court's requirements.

Justices pressed both sides about gaps in the appellate record. Schnipper urged the court to consider expanding the record to include portions of a related criminal trial transcript that contain the wife's testimony, arguing that the available affidavits and the permanent‑order hearing transcript together show insufficient grounds for permanency. The bench also asked whether the father's path to unsupervised contact lay in family‑court proceedings (drug testing, therapy, supervised visits) rather than through vacating a restraining order — an option Schnipper acknowledged but distinguished from the higher evidentiary standard required for a permanent criminalizing restriction on parental contact.

After questioning both attorneys, the panel submitted the matter for decision. The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing.