L.H. v. R.H.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: June 15, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-1507
• Status: Unpublished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

25-P-1507

L.H.

vs.

R.H.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from an extension of an abuse

prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A (209A order)

following a hearing in the District Court. We affirm.

Background. The parties are the divorced parents of an

elementary school-aged child. On October 26, 2024, the

plaintiff obtained an emergency 209A order against the

defendant. 1 Following a two-party hearing on November 5, 2024, a

judge extended the 209A order for one year. 2 Both parties

1The temporary order was initially scheduled for a hearing on October 28, 2024, and then rescheduled to November 5, 2024, at the defendant's request.

2On December 26, 2024, the order was modified to incorporate the terms of a December 20, 2024 Probate and Family Court temporary order. On April 9, 2025, the order was again appeared at an extension hearing on November 5, 2025. After

finding that "there [was] still some hostility, at least some

friction" with an upcoming Probate and Family Court trial

between the parties, 3 a different judge extended the 209A order

for one year.

Discussion. To extend a 209A order, the plaintiff bears

the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence

that an extension is necessary to protect her from the

likelihood of "abuse" as defined in G. L. c. 209A, § 1. See

Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739 (2005). We review a

judge's decision to extend a 209A order for an abuse of

discretion or other error of law. See E.C.O. v. Compton, 464

Mass. 558, 561-562 (2013). We give deference to the credibility

determinations of the judge who heard the parties' testimony and

observed their demeanor. See id. at 562.

Our inquiry is limited to reviewing only whether the

November 5, 2025 extension order properly issued; we do not

consider the plaintiff's challenges to the initial order issued

after the two-party hearing on November 5, 2024. See Iamele,

444 Mass. at 740 ("The judge is to consider the basis for the

modified to incorporate a Probate and Family Court stipulation from the same date.

3 At the extension hearing, the plaintiff testified that the trial involved issues of custody arrangements, domestic violence, and failed drug tests.

2 initial order in evaluating the risk of future abuse should the

existing order expire. This does not mean that the restrained

party may challenge the evidence underlying the initial order").

Where the defendant failed to make a timely challenge to the

initial order, his hearsay challenges to the plaintiff's

affidavit and to the evidence presented at the November 5, 2024

hearing are not properly before us. See id.

The defendant argues that the evidence failed to

demonstrate any recent act of abuse, that the plaintiff failed

to demonstrate a reasonable fear of imminent harm, that the

judge improperly based the extension on courtroom friction and

custody conflict, and that the 209A order was used to influence

the custody litigation. We disagree. Where the plaintiff has

suffered past physical harm, an extension is warranted if "there

is a continued need for the order because the damage resulting

from that physical harm affects the victim even when further

physical attack is not reasonably imminent" (citation omitted).

Vera V. v. Seymour S., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 315, 317 (2020). Here,

the judge expressed his concerns over ongoing "hostility" and

"friction" between the parties and their upcoming Probate and

Family Court trial. In deciding to extend the order, the judge

was permitted to consider the ongoing Probate and Family Court

proceedings between the parties. See Iamele, 444 Mass. at 740

(judge should consider factors including "ongoing child custody

3 or other litigation that engenders hostility" and "the parties'

demeanor in court"). Based on our review of the record, we

discern no error in the judge's decision to extend the order.

Although the defendant had not violated the 209A order, the

judge properly noted that that was not a reason to deny the

plaintiff's request to extend the order because it demonstrated

that the order was working. In light of the ongoing physical

abuse perpetrated by the defendant during the course of the

marriage, the judge could reasonably conclude that an extension

of the order was needed in light of the upcoming Probate and

Family Court trial. 4 As we have discussed, a 209A order may be

extended if the judge determines that it is necessary to protect

4 The judge considered extending the order only until the Probate and Family Court trial date, but extended it longer because "trials get continued quite frequently." As the judge predicted, the trial date was in fact continued.

4 a plaintiff from the impact of past abuse. See Vera V., 98

Mass. App. Ct. at 319.

Order dated November 5, 2025, extending abuse prevention order affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Ditkoff & Tan, JJ. 5),

Clerk

Entered: June 15, 2026.

5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.