Preview:

Moreno v. Naranjo Opinion Summary: Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an abusive relationship. Plaintiff and the parties' child moved out of Massachusetts but subsequently obtained an abuse prevention order, issued pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A. Plaintiff later requested that the order be extended by one year. The judge extended the order for six months instead. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judge abused her discretion by extending the order for six months, rather than a full year, because she improperly considered matters outside the purview of chapter 209A. The Supreme Court
(1) dismissed the appeal as moot because the abuse prevention order had expired and Plaintiff did not seek to have it extended further in the trial court; but (2) concluded that the judge abused her discretion by considering Defendant's visitation rights in deciding to extend the order for six months.
Nora MORENO vs. Juan NARANJO.
SJC-11070.
May 8, 2013.
Abuse Prevention. Moot Question. Practice, Civil, Moot case.

Mithra D. Merryman for the plaintiff.

Claire Laporte, Rebecca Cazabon, Katie M. Perry, & Cicely Parseghian, for Domestic & Sexual Violence Council &
others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

RESCRIPT.

Nora Moreno appeals from a District Court judgment extending an abuse prevention order, issued pursuant to G.L. c.
209A, for six months rather than a full year, as she had requested. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. Moreno

v. Naranjo, 79 Mass.App.Ct. 1117 (2011). We granted Moreno's application for further appellate review. Moreno v. Naranjo, 460 Mass. 1113 (2011). Because the abuse prevention order has expired, the defendant has not appealed from it, and the plaintiff apparently did not seek to have it extended further in the trial court, we are constrained to dismiss the matter as moot. Nonetheless, because this case raises an important concern regarding c. 209A proceedings, we exercise our discretion to address the issue. [FN1]
Moreno and the defendant, Juan Naranjo, were involved in an intimate relationship for several years and are the parents of a minor child. The relationship was marked by physical abuse, which led to Naranjo's arrest and to the issuance of a c. 209A order not at issue here. Sometime after that order expired, another assault allegedly occurred, and Naranjo moved out of Massachusetts. A few weeks thereafter, however, Naranjo sent Moreno a text message indicating that he would "see [her] soon." Fearing for her own and her child's safety, Moreno applied for the abuse prevention order at issue here. A judge in the District Court issued an ex parte order prohibiting Naranjo from, among other things, abusing Moreno or having any contact with her or the child. The ex parte order also granted custody of the child to Moreno. At a hearing approximately ten days later before a different judge, Moreno requested that the order be extended by one year. After hearing argument from both parties, the judge declined to extend the order by a full year and instead extended it for six months, over Moreno's objection.
Moreno argues that the judge abused her discretion by extending the order for six months, rather than a full year, because she improperly considered matters that are outside the purview of c. 209A, namely, the impact that the order would have on Naranjo's visitation with the child. We agree. Although a judge has discretion to extend a c. 209A order and to set the duration of the extension within the statutory limit, that discretion must be guided by the "time reasonably necessary to protect from abuse the plaintiff or any child in the plaintiff's care or custody." [FN2] G.L. c. 209A,

Download sjc-11070.pdf

Massachusetts Law