Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge panel questions whether record shows imminent threat in restraining-order appeal
Summary
In CK v. SH, counsel argued that extensions of a protective order were unsupported by evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm; the panel probed timing, hearsay and whether the father’s violent acts toward the mother translated into imminent risk to the daughter.
Stephen Goldwin, representing the appellant in an appeal of continuing restraining-order extensions, told the court the record lacks proof that the daughter remained in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm and questioned why she waited six weeks after an incident to seek court protection.
Goldwin argued the assertions in the original affidavit — including that the client "heard him punch her mother in the face" and that he had said he might "come to Cambridge" — did not establish a specific, imminent threat to the daughter. The panel pressed on whether the daughter's fears were reasonable given intervening facts (including that the defendant was then in Canada and that there had been no direct contact while orders were in place).
The court also examined whether the earlier criminal conditions of release and domestic-violence allegations, the daughter's testimony and neighborhood accounts provided a sufficient factual basis for continued emergency relief. Counsel for the Commonwealth and the trial court's credibility determinations were discussed extensively on whether the record supported extensions of the order.
No decision was announced; the court took the matter under advisement.
