Appeals court hears challenge to one-year extension of abuse-prevention order

Counsel for AE told the appeals court that a judge extended an abuse-prevention order for one year after a two-party hearing without taking testimony from the plaintiff, ME, who was available on Zoom but not permitted to testify. "The abuse prevention order was extended for 1 year after a 2 party hearing, without any evidence from ME," counsel said, arguing the extension relied solely on law-enforcement testimony from a related criminal proceeding.

AE's attorney said the lower court denied a request to cross-examine and effectively substituted the Commonwealth's testimony for the plaintiff's, which she called an "abuse of discretion" because the statutory and case-law burden to show continued need lies with the plaintiff. The attorney urged the court to vacate the extension, which would permit her client to seek sealing or expungement of the underlying 2025–2026 order if vacated.

The panel pressed counsel on remedies and practical consequences; counsel responded that remand for a new hearing would not be appropriate because the plaintiff's present need could differ now from the need at the original hearing. The court noted the order had expired and sought clarification about subsequent extensions and the record status.

The appeals court took the arguments under advisement after questioning both sides about record notations indicating the court initially declined to accept ME on Zoom and about the procedural posture. No formal decision was rendered at argument; the case was submitted for decision by the court.