C.N. v. R.A.

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

23-P-1457

C.N.

vs.

R.A.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, R.A., appeals from a District Court judge's

denial of his motion to terminate an abuse prevention order

issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A (209A order). Discerning no

error, we affirm.

Background. On December 3, 2022, the police responded to a

domestic incident involving the defendant and C.N. (plaintiff),

and the police arrested the defendant. Two days later, the

defendant was charged with assault and battery on a family or

household member, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a). On

June 6, 2023, the plaintiff applied for and obtained the 209A

order against the defendant. In the affidavit supporting her

application, she stated the defendant had attacked her multiple
times and threatened her life, and that she was frightened of

the defendant. After a bench trial in the District Court on

October 18, 2023, a judge found the defendant not guilty of

assault and battery on a family or household member. The

defendant then moved to terminate the 209A order. Following a

hearing on November 13, 2023, a different judge denied that

motion.

Discussion. As it contains only a single paragraph of

"argument" and does not cite to any authorities to support his

argument or provide the standard of review for the issue

presented, the defendant's brief does not the meet the

requirements of Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481

Mass. 1628 (2019). Nevertheless, we address his argument

briefly.

Although the 209A order issued against the defendant

expired on June 5, 2024, the appeal before us is not moot. "The

defendant 'could be adversely affected by [the orders] in the

event of future applications for an order under G. L. c. 209A

. . . [and] has a surviving interest in establishing that the

orders were not lawfully issued, thereby, to a limited extent,

removing a stigma from his name and record.'" Smith v. Jones,

67 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 133 (2006), quoting Wooldridge v. Hickey,

45 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 638 (1998). We review the denial of a

2
defendant's motion to terminate a 209A order for abuse of

discretion. L.L. v. M.M., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 18, 22 (2019).

The defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion

to terminate because he was acquitted of the assault and battery

charge. When a defendant moves to terminate an abuse prevention

order, he "must show by clear and convincing evidence that, as a

result of a significant change in circumstances, it is no longer

equitable for the order to continue because the protected party

no longer has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical

harm." MacDonald v. Caruso, 467 Mass. 382, 382-383 (2014).

"[T]he only relevant issue is the safety of the plaintiff." Id.

at 392, citing Moreno v. Naranjo, 465 Mass. 1001, 1003 (2013).

The defendant does not explain how the finding in his criminal

trial relates to the issue of the plaintiff's safety. An

acquittal of assault and battery on a family or household member

may be explained by numerous reasons unrelated to the truth of a

complainant's allegations of abuse or fear of imminent serious

physical harm. In addition, the defendant has not provided a

transcript of the hearing on his motion to terminate, and

3
nothing in the record before us shows that the judge abused his

discretion in denying it.

Order denying motion to
terminate abuse prevention
order affirmed.

By the Court (Neyman, Singh &
Toone, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: November 7, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4