Litchfield v. Litchfield

The main thrust of the defendant’s appeal from a modification and extension of an abuse prevention order, pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, is that the restrictions contained in the order are unreasonable and unconstitutional.1 The order, dated October 31, 1997, is permanent and requires the defendant to *355stay at least 500 yards from the plaintiff and one mile from her home.2

Prior to issuing the order in question, the judge, who was familiar with the case, having presided over the parties’ divorce and having issued or extended orders under G. L. c. 208, § 34B,3 held a hearing and heard from both…