Guideline 3:00
A plaintiff applying for an abuse prevention order under c. 209A should be brought before the court for a possible ex parte hearing as soon as is practicable. Proceeding with a hearing on a c. 209A complaint without prior notice to the defendant and a right to be heard constitutes an exception to fundamental due process. This exception, i.e., the right to proceed ex parte, is justified when there is “a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse.” G.L. c. 209A, § 4.
Court personnel or others assisting the plaintiff in filing the complaint should not attempt to determine whether an ex parte hearing is appropriate. It is for the judge to decide whether the grounds are sufficient to issue an order on an ex parte basis. All complaints should be brought promptly before the court, and the clerk’s office should notify the judge when a plaintiff seeking a c. 209A protection order has entered the courtroom. See Guideline 3:01 Prioritizing Ex Parte Hearings.
If a plaintiff is “unable to appear in court without severe hardship due to the plaintiff’s physical condition,” a representative of the plaintiff may, “appear in court on the plaintiff’s behalf and file the requisite complaint with an affidavit setting forth the circumstances preventing the plaintiff from appearing personally.” G.L. c. 209A, § 5. The plaintiff may also be permitted to appear via videoconference. See Guideline 1:08 Plaintiff Unable to Appear in Court.
Commentary
Because of the sensitive nature and range of safety and volatility consideration in c. 209A proceedings, the judge is in the best position to determine not only whether the standard for a c. 209A order has been met, but also whether the grounds are sufficient for the issuance of an ex parte order or whether it is more appropriate to schedule the matter for a hearing after notice to the defendant. Where relief is not warranted, the complaint should be denied without scheduling a hearing after notice.
The court must be cognizant that when a matter is scheduled for a two-party hearing without the issuance of an ex parte order, the plaintiff will not have the protection of a c. 209A order in the interim between the filing of the complaint and the subsequent two-party hearing. For this reason, such practice should be used only in situations in which it is clear that the delay and notice will not present an elevated danger to the plaintiff.
Contact
Phone
Address
| Last updated: | October 20, 2025 |
|---|