Callahan v. Callahan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-054-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13‑P‑178 Appeals Court APRIL B. CALLAHAN vs. RICHARD E. CALLAHAN. No. 13‑P‑178. Hampden. April 2, 2014. ‑ May 28, 2014. Present: Grasso, Kafker, & Graham, JJ. Abuse Prevention. Complaint for protection from abuse filed in the Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on July 6, 2010. Motions to extend and to modify or terminate an abuse prevention order were heard by David G. Sacks, J. Richard E. Callahan, pro se. GRASSO, J. At issue is whether a Probate and Family Court judge abused his discretion in extending (and refusing to modify or terminate) an abuse prevention order issued under G. L. c. 209A when the subject of that order was also serving a prison sentence for crimes of violence against the plaintiff who obtained the order. We conclude that the judge did not err and affirm. 1. Background. On July 6, 2010, April B. Callahan sought and received an abuse and prevention order against her then husband, Richard E. Callahan, in the Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court. The order directed Richard to refrain from abusing April and to vacate and remain away from the marital home, awarded April physical custody of their minor child, and provided visitation to Richard. On July 19, 2010, April moved to amend the order to include no contact with the child. After a hearing at which both parties were present, a judge allowed the motion, modified the order, and continued the matter for further hearing on August 4, 2010. Later in the day on July 19, 2010, Richard violated the order and was arrested for crimes of violence against April, discussed at greater length below. Although held on bail, Richard appeared at the modification hearing held on August 4, 2010, at which the judge scheduled a review of the order modifications for September 22, 2010. On September 22, 2010, after further hearing at which both parties appeared, a judge modified the order to include a provision directing Richard not to contact April, to stay twenty-five yards away from her, and to stay away from her workplace. As so modified the order extended to July 6, 2011, which marked one year from the date of the initial order. On July 6, 2011, the abuse prevention order was extended for an additional […]