J.M. v. R.S.

── J.M. v. R.S. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 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-980 J.M. vs. R.S. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 This appeal concerns the May 2025 extension of an abuse prevention order originally issued in May 2024 in favor of the plaintiff, J.M., against the defendant, R.S., under G. L. c. 209A (209A order or order). The defendant has filed this pro se appeal from an order of a District Court judge dated May 28, 2025, extending the 209A order for one year. We affirm. Background. The parties began a dating relationship in 2021 and share two children together. On May 1, 2024, the plaintiff appeared at the Concord District Court and applied for a 209A order. In her affidavit, the plaintiff stated that she was concerned for her safety as well as that of her children, as the defendant had become "unhinged," increasingly volatile, and had recently told her that he "was capable of anything" including killing. The plaintiff obtained a 209A order on an ex parte basis, and after a two-party hearing, the order was extended for one year, to expire on May 28, 2025. The defendant did not appeal from that order. At a hearing on May 28, 2025, a judge of the District Court extended the order for one year until May 27, 2026. The judge also modified the order by requiring that the parties comply with any child support and visitation orders issued by the Probate and Family Court. The defendant has appealed from the order dated May 28, 2025. Discussion. To obtain an extension of the 209A order, the plaintiff was required to show "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the order remained necessary to protect her "from the likelihood of [further] 'abuse,' as defined in G. L. c. 209A, § 1." Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739 (2005). At the hearing, the judge considers "the totality of the conditions that exist at the time that the plaintiff seeks the extension, viewed in the light of the initial abuse prevention order." Id. at 741. We review the extension of a 209A order "for an abuse of discretion or other error of law." E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558, 562 (2013). At the outset, we note that the defendant has attempted to offer additional evidence on appeal, including evidence as to some events which occurred after the extension of the 209A order 2 on May 28, 2025. "We cannot base our decision on facts not contained in the record" that were not before the judge. Love v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 413 Mass. 766, 768 (1992). Accordingly, to the extent that the materials included with the defendant's appellate brief seek to expand the record, we deny such motion to expand the record as the materials were not before the judge at the extension hearing. The defendant advances several arguments on appeal, including that there was insufficient evidence that he abused the plaintiff