Posts tagged "1107215"

F.A.P. v. J.E.S. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-072-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-758                                   Appeals Court   F.A.P.  vs.  J.E.S. No. 14-P-758. Middlesex.     February 5, 2015. – June 30, 2015.   Present:  Vuono, Milkey, & Blake, JJ. Civil Harassment.  Harassment Prevention.  Protective Order.  Rape.  Minor.  Child Abuse.  Witness, Cross-examination.  Evidence,  Hearsay.  Practice, Civil, Hearsay.       Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Middlesex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on March 21, 2013.   The case was heard by Gwendolyn R. Tyre, J.     Dennis R. Brown for the defendant. Kimberly Ann Parr for the plaintiff.      MILKEY, J.  At an ex parte hearing, a Juvenile Court judge issued a temporary harassment prevention order against the defendant, an eleven year old boy.  See G. L. c. 258E, § 5.  The order was issued based on allegations that the defendant had digitally raped the plaintiff, the seven year old girl on whose behalf the harassment complaint was filed.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge extended the order for one year.[1]  On appeal of the order issued after hearing,[2] the defendant argues that the evidence of “harassment” was legally insufficient, and that the judge erred in multiple additional respects:  by applying an erroneous interpretation of the statute, by improperly admitting hearsay testimony, and by unduly constraining his ability to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses.  Although we are unpersuaded by most of the defendant’s arguments, we agree that the judge applied an incorrect view of the law.  We therefore remand this matter for further consideration. 1.  Background.[3]  The parents of the two children were close family friends, and their families spent a considerable amount of time together.  During the afternoon of January 25, 2013, a Friday, the defendant and his mother arrived at the plaintiff’s home where they spent the next several hours.  At one point, the defendant and girl were unsupervised together on the second floor.[4]  This caused the plaintiff’s mother some concern because the children had, on one occasion in the past, engaged in some inappropriate touching.[5]  A few minutes after the plaintiff’s mother called for the children to come downstairs, the plaintiff reported that she was bleeding from her vaginal area.  Both mothers examined her in a bathroom and confirmed that she was in fact bleeding.  The plaintiff’s mother called a doctor to discuss the matter, and eventually brought the plaintiff in for an appointment the following Monday.  The remainder of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 30, 2015 at 9:08 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,