A.M.D. v. D.A.C. (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

D.A.C., a self-represented litigant, submits this consolidated appeal from the following five orders relating to a G. L. c. 209A order issued against him: (1) a temporary 209A order following an ex parte hearing (order 1); (2) an order extending the temporary 209A order following a full hearing (order 2); (3) the denial of his motion to vacate the 209A order (order 3); (4) the denial of his motion for a new trial (order 4); and, (5) the denial of his motion for written findings (order 5). We affirm.

Outside of business hours on December 25, 2023, at the request of the appellee, A.M.D., an emergency 209A order was issued against D.A.C. In her affidavit supporting the application for the order, A.M.D. detailed that on Christmas day, after hearing her family's dog barking at 3 A.M., she and her family found a poster-sized picture of her daughter, the child she had with D.A.C., and a package on the lawn outside their home in Princeton, Massachusetts. A.M.D. believed that the items were left by D.A.C. with whom she's had no contact for three or four years and who resides in New York. A.M.D. further stated that she had previously obtained orders of protection against D.A.C., which she believed had expired, for about twelve years following a documented history of “domestic violence, rape, molestation, incest, stalking [and] abuse.” Because it was an afterhours emergency order, A.M.D. was instructed to go to court the following day to request a further order.

On December 26, 2023, A.M.D. presented herself at court and following an ex parte hearing, a judge of the District Court granted a temporary 209A order against D.A.C., and extended the previous order until January 9, 2024, at which time a two-party hearing could be had if A.M.D. desired a further extension. She did. During the two-party hearing, A.M.D. testified as to the events on Christmas day, that she has had previous protection orders in New York against D.A.C. for about the last twelve years, and that D.A.C. has never stopped harassing and stalking her and her family.¹ She also testified that she and her daughter fear for their lives because of threats of violence D.A.C. has made against them. In turn, D.A.C. alleged, inter alia, that the parties had an ongoing child custody dispute in New York, and that A.M.D. had committed parental kidnapping of their daughter.

At the end of the hearing, the judge extended the 209A order for one year until January 5, 2025. On January 12, 2024, D.A.C. filed a motion to vacate the 209A order which was denied on January 24, 2024. On February 23, 2024, D.A.C. filed a motion for a new trial which was denied on March 11, 2024. Finally, on March 13, 2024, D.A.C. filed a motion requesting written findings which was denied the following day.

Discussion. “General Laws c. 209A enables a person suffering from abuse from an adult or minor family or household member to obtain a protective order directing the defendant, among other things, to refrain from abuse or contact” (quotations and citations omitted). E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558, 562 (2013). “Under G. L. c. 209A, § 1 (e), family or household members include persons who are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship.” Id. “Abuse” is defined, inter alia, as “placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.” G. L. c. 209A, § 1. To meet that standard, the plaintiff must satisfy both a subjective and an objective standard: that she was currently in fear of imminent serious physical harm, and that her fear was reasonable. See Yahna Y. v. Sylvester S., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 186 (2020).

Our review of orders 2, 3, and 4 are for an abuse of discretion or other error of law.² See E.C.O., 464 Mass. at 561-562. As to order 5, a judge's decision to not issue written findings will stand so long as a reasonable basis exists for the underlying decision. See Nelson N. v. Patsy P., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 78, 81 n.7 (2020).

Here, contrary to D.A.C.’s arguments, there was sufficient evidence to warrant an extension of the temporary 209A order (order 2). During the full hearing, A.M.D. testified that D.A.C.’s conduct in the early morning on December 25, 2023, placed herself and her family in immediate fear of harm. Importantly, prior to the hearing, D.A.C. admitted to police that he did leave the picture of his daughter and a gift at the mailbox at A.M.D.’s mother's home. D.A.C. further disclosed that he had a “court order designation of confidentiality” that prevented him from knowing where A.M.D. lives. Additionally, the record reflects that A.M.D. has previously obtained multiple abuse and prevention orders against D.A.C. over the last twelve years.

Considering this backdrop, the judge below could have reasonably found that D.A.C.’s surreptitious behavior on December 25, 2023, put A.M.D. in fear of imminent serious physical harm by D.A.C., and that such a fear was reasonable. Yahna Y., 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 186. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in extending the 209A order (order 2), or the judge's denials of D.A.C.’s motion for a new trial (order 3) and motion to vacate (order 4). Likewise, because a reasonable basis existed for extending the 209A order, the judge was not required to issue written findings (order 5).³ Nelson N., 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 81 n.7. Furthermore, while D.A.C. makes several arguments concerning A.M.D.’s purported misconduct with the custody of their daughter, these arguments are outside the scope of the 209A order at issue here. As the hearing judge noted below, child custody issues are within the purview of the Probate and Family Court.

The orders of the District Court entered January 9, 2024, January 24, 2024, March 11, 2024, and March 14, 2024, are affirmed. The appeal from the order entered December 26, 2023, is dismissed as moot.

So ordered.

FOOTNOTES

1.   D.A.C. was personally served with the temporary order and notice of the District Court two-party hearing at Worcester Probate and Family Court at 9:42 A.M. on the morning of the two-party hearing.

2.   The defendant is not entitled to appellate review of order 1 because it was an ex parte 209A order that was extended after a full hearing following notice. See V.M. v. R.B., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 522, 524 (2018). Accordingly, the appeal from that order will be dismissed as moot. Id. at 527.

3.   While D.A.C. also argues that the judge erroneously credited A.M.D.’s testimony, “[w]e accord the credibility determinations of the judge who heard the testimony of the parties ․ the utmost deference” (quotations and citations omitted), E.C.O., 464 Mass. at 562, and find no reason not to do so here.