A.M.D. v. D.A.C.
This text of A.M.D. v. D.A.C. (A.M.D. v. D.A.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-219
A.M.D.
vs.
D.A.C.
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
2 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
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.
3 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
The defendant is not entitled to appellate review of order 2
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.
4 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
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.
5 scope of the 209A order at issue here.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
A.M.D. v. D.A.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amd-v-dac-massappct-2025.