The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed under what circumstances a court might erase a protective order once issued.
Overview of the Case: J.S.H. v. J.S.
The case of J.S.H. v. J.S. involved a harassment prevention order under Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 258E. The president of a religious non-profit organization requested the order. The organization ran a support group for domestic violence victims. The defendant was the husband of one of the women who attended the group. The plaintiff said in her affidavit that the defendant reached out to board members to damage her reputation. He also sent her several disturbing emails. The plaintiff did not include any letters or emails with their affidavit. The trial court granted an order of protection. When the order expired, the plaintiff asked for an extension. She provided copies of a letter and two emails the defendant sent to the board. The trial court declined to extend the order.
Nearly a year later, the defendant sought to expunge all evidence of the order of protection. The defendant claimed the plaintiff committed fraud in obtaining the original protective order. Specifically, he argued that she falsely stated he sent direct emails. The court declined to expunge the records, and on appeal, the Appeals Court agreed.
Court’s Legal Reasoning on Expungement
“Chapters 209A and 258E are particularly similar in their treatment of records following the issuance of an order, as well
as after an order is vacated. Under both statutes, once a judge issues an order, the order and supporting papers are transmitted to the appropriate law enforcement agency,” the Court explained. Under both statutes, once an order is vacated, the court sends written notification to the appropriate law enforcement agency directing it to destroy its records of the vacated order. However, there is no explicit statutory authority regarding the expungement of records of c. 209A or c. 258E orders from any Statewide registry maintained by the commissioner.”
The Court stated that, for an expungement order to be appropriate, the petitioner must, therefore, prove fraud in obtaining the original abuse protection order. Citing a previous case precedent, the Court explained that “[a] ‘fraud on the court’ occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”
The Court stated that the plaintiff did not fabricate her story. It also found no evidence of deceptive motives. It emphasized that fraud requires more serious actions. The court affirmed the decision to retain the records.
Contact Us for Legal Assistance
If you have any questions about issues of divorce, custody, or support, you may schedule a free consultation with our office. Call 978-225-9030 during regular business hours or complete our contact form online, and one of our competent family law attorneys will get back to you at our earliest opportunity.