Domestic relations – Abuse prevention order – Continuance

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has challenged an abuse prevention order, the defendant’s request for a continuance should have been allowed, so the order must be vacated.

“The defendant appeals from an abuse prevention order issued by the District Court at a hearing after notice, following the denial of his motion for a continuance of the hearing. After review, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. …

“On appeal, the defendant contends that the judge abused his discretion in denying his request for a continuance. …

“Although there is no bright line, in the circumstances here, with the defendant representing that he had counsel who told him not to proceed without him but could not appear at that time given the short notice, holding the two-party hearing nine hours after service at midnight violated the defendant’s right to due process. Here, the defendant requested a two-week continuance in order to prepare and have the assistance of counsel. In advising the defendant that he was not ‘entitled’ to counsel, the judge may have misunderstood the defendant to be seeking court-appointed counsel. On review, however, the record reflects that the defendant clearly explained that he had consulted counsel on his own, that his counsel could not appear on such short notice, and that he was seeking a short continuance in order to obtain counsel’s advice, if not presence, for the hearing after notice.

“… The defendant had extremely short notice of the hearing, and he sought legal advice. The plaintiff was already protected by an ex parte order that could be extended to the next hearing date. The defendant was seeking a short continuance, and the record reveals no apparent prejudice to the plaintiff or other countervailing considerations. Under the circumstances, the defendant’s request for a continuance should have been allowed. The order dated May 2, 2024, is thus vacated, and the case is remanded for a new hearing.”

J.R. v. B.M. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-018-26) (9 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-1133) (Feb. 13, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.