BOSTON, MA — Where a defendant father has filed an appeal challenging two District Court abuse prevention orders obtained by the plaintiff mother on behalf of the divorced couple’s two minor children, a remand must be ordered because the judge’s oral findings on the record raise a concern that the correct standard was not applied.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026 On appeal, the father contends that the judge made no independent findings and instead impermissibly relied on findings of the judge who presided over the prior ex parte proceeding. We vacate the orders of February 26, 2025, extending the abuse prevention orders, and remand the cases for further proceedings. \u2026<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026 \u2018An ex parte order is entitled to no weight and the issue must be relitigated anew.\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, however, it appears that the judge who heard the testimony and observed the parties relied on the ex parte judge’s determination of the mother’s credibility \u2018previously,\u2019 and that judge’s decision to issue the ex parte orders, to find that \u2018it\u2019 met the standards for a hearing after notice. Indeed, the judge’s first statement upon resuming the bench was a \u2018finding\u2019 that \u2018there was a previous order that was issued.\u2019 Although we ordinarily presume that trial judges know and correctly apply the law, the judge’s oral findings on the record raise a concern that the correct standard was not applied. \u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cAccordingly, the orders of February 26, 2025, extending the abuse prevention orders, are vacated. The cases are remanded to the District Court, where the judge will have thirty days after the issuance of the rescript to enter specific written findings supporting the orders against the father. If findings are not made in that time, notifications and directions shall enter, conformably with G.L.c. 209A, \u00a77, third par., for the destruction of all records of the vacated orders. We deny the mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees.\u201d<\/p>\n
B.M. v. J.M.<\/em> (and a consolidated case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-088-26) (5 pages) (Docket No. 25-P-679) (July 31, 2026).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" BOSTON, MA — Where a defendant father has filed an appeal challenging two District Court abuse prevention orders obtained by the plaintiff mother on behalf of the divorced couple’s two minor children, a remand must be ordered because the judge’s oral findings on the record raise a concern that the correct standard was not applied. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4199,"featured_media":19007,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[52569,2536,71497],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-featured","category-from-the-courts","subscriber_only"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n