T.C. v. J.C. (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant appeals from an order of a District Court judge in April 2019 extending an abuse prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, § 3.² The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the extension of the order, as he has not harmed the plaintiff, attempted to harm the plaintiff, or taken any actions that would place her in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. See G. L. c. 209A, § 1.

The defendant, however, has not provided us with a transcript of the extension hearing on April 9, 2019. “It is the appellant's burden to provide us with a complete record.” G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 397 n.13 (2018). “That a transcript must be submitted to support a claim that the evidence was insufficient is not some hypertechnical requirement, but a reflection of the fact that resolution of such a claim requires the reviewing court to see the entirety of the evidence that was presented.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 656, 661 (2009), quoting Covell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 439 Mass. 766, 782 (2003). As the record stands, we have no way of knowing what evidence was presented to the District Court judge or of determining whether it met the standard for extending an abuse prevention order. Accordingly, we have no basis to reverse the order extending the abuse prevention order.³

Order dated April 9, 2019, extending abuse prevention order affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The defendant argues that there was inadequate evidence to support the earlier extensions of the abuse prevention order, but the defendant did not file a timely notice of appeal from any of the earlier extensions. Accordingly, they are not before us. See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019); Pierce v. Hansen Eng'g & Mach. Co., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 713, 715 (2019).

3.   It is worth noting that the defendant recounts multiple conversations he allegedly had with the plaintiff. The abuse prevention order, however, forbids contact with the plaintiff “even if the Plaintiff seems to allow or request contact,” with limited exceptions for discussing the motor vehicle insurance check and visitation with the children.