Civil practice – Harassment prevention order – Extension

Listen to this article

Where a District Court judge extended a harassment prevention order issued pursuant to G.L.c. 258E, the judge did not make findings as to why an extension of 10 years was necessary, so the case should be remanded to revise the extension period to two years.

“The defendant appeals from an order of a District Court judge extending a harassment prevention order issued pursuant to G.L.c. 258E (258E order or order) for ten years. He argues that (1) the original order should be vacated, (2) the judge abused his discretion in extending the order, and (3) he was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We affirm the extension of the 258E order but vacate so much of the order that extended it for ten years. We remand the case to the District Court to revise the extension period from ten years to two years from January 20, 2023, and to schedule a further hearing for January 20, 2025, with notice to both parties. …

“Once a determination to extend a 258E order is made, the duration of the extended order must be ‘reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff’ from future harassment. … Here, the judge did not make findings as to why an extension of ten years was necessary, and the plaintiff’s testimony did not support such a duration. On this record, we cannot conclude that ten years is a reasonably necessary period to protect the plaintiff from further harassment. … Accordingly, we vacate so much of the order that extended it for ten years, and remand to the District Court to revise the expiration date to two years from January 20, 2023 (the last extension date). …

“We vacate so much of the January 20, 2023 extension order that granted a ten-year duration for the extension, and remand the case to the District Court to revise the expiration date to two years from January 20, 2023, and to schedule a further hearing for January 20, 2025, with notice to both parties. The January 20, 2023 extension order is otherwise affirmed.”

J.H. v. N.F. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-128-24) (6 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-709) (Nov. 20, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.