Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals Court hears challenge to termination of 209A protective order
Summary
In a special sitting the Appeals Court reviewed an appeal challenging a trial judge’s termination of a 209A protective order, with counsel disputing whether the judge applied the required clear‑and‑convincing Caruso standard or improperly relied on collateral concerns such as college applications.
The Appeals Court on a special sitting heard argument in 24P1224, SB v. LM, a challenge to the trial court’s termination of a 209A domestic‑violence protective order.
Appellant counsel (identified in the record as Miss B) told the panel the case turns on the proper application of the termination standard—citing McDonald/Caruso—and said the defendant bears the clear‑and‑convincing burden to show a significant change in circumstances and that the plaintiff no longer reasonably fears imminent serious physical harm. Counsel argued the trial judge ‘‘emphasized that he was not going to hurt somebody’s opportunity to go to college’’ and therefore improperly relied on collateral, non‑statutory considerations…
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
