S.T. v. E.M.

The plaintiff appeals from the decision of a District Court judge vacating an abuse prevention order, previously issued against the defendant, pursuant to G. L. c. 209A. She argues that the judge impermissibly prevented her from calling the defendant as a witness at the hearing. We agree.

The plaintiff applied for and received an ex parte abuse prevention order on February 23, 2010.1-2 On March 10, 2010, both *424parties appeared at the court with counsel, apparently ready for the extension hearing, although the defendant’s lawyer told the judge that she expected several witnesses to arrive soon.…