R.A. v. W.R.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1434
• Status: Unpublished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-1434

R.A.

vs.

W.R.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a hearing where both parties appeared in the Boston

Municipal Court, the defendant, W.R., appeals from a harassment

prevention order (G. L. c. 258E) extended in favor of the

plaintiff, R.A. We affirm.

Before us is a procedural record amplified by court orders,

the plaintiff's application for an order under c. 258E, and

various exhibits. According to that record, a judge issued an

ex parte harassment prevention order on October 26, 2023.

Following a two-party hearing on November 20, 2023, the judge

extended the order for one year. The defendant appealed and a

panel of this court affirmed that order. See R.A. v. W.R., 105

Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2024). At the conclusion of an extension hearing held on November 20, 2024, the judge extended the order

for an additional two years. On December 12, 2024, the

defendant filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, the defendant raises three claims: (1) the

plaintiff's allegations failed "to meet the legal threshold" for

a harassment prevention order; (2) the judge's "issuance and

extension of the order was based on faulty findings of fact and

law"; and (3) the judge's decision "constitutes retaliatory

judicial action" in response to an appeal and civil suit.

As an initial matter, the defendant's arguments concerning

the propriety of the order entered on November 20, 2023, are

beyond the scope of this appeal. The defendant previously

appealed from that order, and a panel of this court affirmed as

noted above. Just as he does not bear the burden at an

extension hearing of relitigating the harassment on which the

initial c. 258E order was based, see Yasmin Y. v. Queshon Q.,

101 Mass. App. Ct. 252, 258-259 (2022), the plaintiff is not

required to revisit an issue previously decided by this court.

As to the remaining arguments, the record in this case is

inadequate. "The burden is on the appellant to ensure that an

adequate record exists for an appellate court to evaluate."

Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 371 (1995). See Mass.

R. A. P. 8 (a)-(c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019); Mass.

R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019). When

2 making such an evaluation, "[w]e can only look at what we are

given." Arch Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Bartlett Health Enters.,

Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406 (1992). Upon our review of the

record in this appeal, we discern no basis to assess the

substance of the claims raised because the defendant, as the

appellant, has not provided this panel with transcripts of the

relevant hearings, findings of fact and law, or any material

supporting his claim of retaliation. Proceeding pro se "does

not relieve [the defendant] of the obligation to present an

adequate record to allow proper review of his claims." Perry v.

Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hull, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 19, 25 (2021).

See Jordan v. Register of Probate for Hampden County, 426 Mass.

1020, 1020 (1998) ("Once again, we caution pro se litigants that

they will be held to the same standards as litigants who are

represented by counsel"). Thus, the defendant has not met his

3 burden of presenting an adequate record for our review.

Order entered November 20, 2024, extending harassment prevention order, affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Walsh & Hodgens, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: October 20, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.