Expunge Fraudulent Restraining Orders from your Record
- Steven Topazio wrote this June 14, 2023 at 2:42 pm
In a recent case the court concluded that a judge has the inherent power to expunge the record of a civil abuse protection order, issued against a defendant pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, from the Statewide domestic violence registry system, in the rare and limited circumstance where the judge has found through clear and convincing evidence that the order was obtained through fraud on the court.
In this case, Jake Jones and Amanda Adams were involved in a romantic relationship. Adams ended the relationship because Jones’s violence and threats of violence caused her to fear for her life and safety. Adams obtained an emergency abuse protection order against Jones pursuant to G. L. c. 209A. In retaliation, Jones filed a complaint for a 209A order against Adams. At an ex parte hearing, a District Court judge entered a temporary 209A order against Adams. Following a hearing at which both Jones and Adams were present, another District Court judge extended both 209A orders for one year. The order against Jones was later made permanent. Meanwhile, Jones was charged in both the Worcester and Springfield Divisions of the District Court Department with a violation of the 209A order against him, threats to commit a crime, and criminal harassment.
In the case of COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION vs. AMANDA ADAMS., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006) the court declared that a District Court judge has the inherent power to expunge a civil abuse protection order, issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, from the Statewide domestic violence registry when the order was obtained through fraud on the court.
Adams filed a motion to vacate the 209A order against her and requested the destruction of all records of the order. A different District Court judge granted her motion to vacate the 209A order but denied her request to destroy the records. Adams then filed a separate motion to destroy all records of the vacated order, including the records located in the Statewide domestic violence record keeping system (system) maintained by the office of the Commissioner of Probation (commissioner) pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, s. 7. See St. 1992, c. 188, s. 7. The commissioner intervened and opposed the motion. The judge granted the motion, reasoning that the prejudice to Adams outweighed the State’s need to maintain records, and he ordered expungement of the record from the system.
The judge found that Adams is an attorney, and that before either party had obtained a 209A order, her work had involved representing children. He further found that Jones falsely complained of Adams to the Board of Bar Overseers. As a result of Jones’s false complaints, the terms and conditions of Adams’s employment were altered to prevent her unsupervised contact with children. The judge found, but did not further specify why, Adams lost employment opportunities because of her listing in the system as an abuser.
The court stated that it must be sufficiently empowered in order to prevent fraud on the court, because allowing the court to be manipulated by fraud poses a danger to its authority. Thus, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that “[w]hen a fraud on the court is shown through clear and convincing evidence to have been committed in an ongoing case, the trial judge has the inherent power to take action in response to the fraudulent conduct.”
The Court employed a Balancing test and cautioned that, before a court may invoke its inherent power to expunge a record, it must ensure that the government’s interest in maintaining the record does not outweigh the harms suffered by the maintenance of the record. The court concluded that the resulting harm here from the maintenance and dissemination of the fraudulent 209A order against Adams outweighs the government interest in keeping the record in the system.
COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION vs. AMANDA ADAMS., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006)
Background photo courtesy of Scott Graham