Not every relationship should end with a MGL c 209A Restraining Order. Permanent Restraining Order denied after two party hearing, and Emergency ex-parte order vacated.

• Steven Topazio wrote this July 6, 2018 at 4:45 pm

The client, a 26 year old professional, hired Attorney Topazio to represent her after she was served with a 209A Restraining Order by police.  A chapter 209A protective order is a court order that protects a party from being abused by a member or former member of that person’s household or family or someone he/she has been in a dating relationship with.  Attorney Topazio obtained a copy of the Restraining Order affidavit from the court which revealed that his client allegedly tried to fight the plaintiff and made over 200 phone calls to him including harassing his mother and other family members after she learned he had a relationship with another woman.  Although an ex-parte emergency temporary order was initially issued by a judge, the law requires that in order for a Restraining Order to issue, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse”. At the two party extension hearing, Attorney Topazio argued that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof and was instead merely annoyed with his client and not truly in fear of immediate harm.  Attorney Topazio persuaded the court not to issue the permanent restraining order arguing that the plaintiff was misusing the restraining order process because of his annoyance and anger towards his client who discovered that he was with another woman and now wanted nothing to do with his client, not because he was truly fearful that she would harm him but rather because he wanted to break up with her. Restraining orders are necessary to protect against abusive parties but when the order is obtained for ulterior reasons, they should be denied and not extended as in this case.