F.P. v. C.J.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0884
• Status: Unpublished

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-884

F.P.

vs.

C.J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

As best can be discerned from the inadequate record in this

case, following an ex parte hearing on May 9, 2024, a judge of

the District Court issued a temporary G. L. c. 258E harassment

prevention order against the defendant, C.J. The order directed

the defendant not to contact the plaintiff, F.P., and to stay at

least fifty yards from her and her residence. Following a two-

party hearing on May 22, 2024, a second judge extended the order

until May 21, 2025, and modified the required stay-away distance

to fifteen yards. On July 10, 2024, a third judge modified the

order by ordering the defendant also to stay at least fifteen

yards from the plaintiff's workplace. The defendant appeals from the order issued following the

two-party hearing on May 22, 2024, and the modification order

issued on July 10, 2024. No meaningful review in this case is

possible because the defendant has not presented this court with

an adequate record. Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481

Mass. 1637 (2019). See Arch Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Bartlett

Health Enters., Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406 (1992). The

defendant contends that she has been "falsely accused of things

that never took place," including "threat[en]ing somebody who I

don't know." She has not, however, provided this court with a

copy of the plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff's motion for

modification, or any of the hearing transcripts. "[The]

appellant's obligation to include those parts of the trial

transcript and copies of motions 'which are essential for review

of the issues raised on appeal . . . is a fundamental and

longstanding rule of appellate civil practice'" (citation

omitted). Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 84 (1995).

"[P]ro se litigants are held to the same standards as practicing

members of the bar." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass. 716,

719 (1995). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the harassment

2 prevention orders issued in the District Court.

Orders dated May 22, 2024, and July 10, 2024, affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, D'Angelo, & Toone, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: September 23, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.