Posts tagged "Moreno"

Moreno v. Naranjo (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-073-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11070   NORA MORENO  vs.  JUAN NARANJO.     May 8, 2013.     Abuse Prevention.  Moot Question.  Practice, Civil, Moot case.       Nora Moreno appeals from a District Court judgment extending an abuse prevention order, issued pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, for six months rather than a full year, as she had requested.  The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.  Moreno v. Naranjo, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 (2011).  We granted Moreno’s application for further appellate review.  Moreno v. Naranjo, 460 Mass. 1113 (2011).  Because the abuse prevention order has expired, the defendant has not appealed from it, and the plaintiff apparently did not seek to have it extended further in the trial court, we are constrained to dismiss the matter as moot.  Nonetheless, because this case raises an important concern regarding c. 209A proceedings, we exercise our discretion to address the issue.[1]     Moreno and the defendant, Juan Naranjo, were involved in an intimate relationship for several years and are the parents of a minor child.  The relationship was marked by physical abuse, which led to Naranjo’s arrest and to the issuance of a c. 209A order not at issue here.  Sometime after that order expired, another assault allegedly occurred, and Naranjo moved out of Massachusetts.  A few weeks thereafter, however, Naranjo sent Moreno a text message indicating that he would “see [her] soon.”  Fearing for her own and her child’s safety, Moreno applied for the abuse prevention order at issue here.  A judge in the District Court issued an ex parte order prohibiting Naranjo from, among other things, abusing Moreno or having any contact with her or the child.  The ex parte order also granted custody of the child to Moreno.  At a hearing approximately ten days later before a different judge, Moreno requested that the order be extended by one year.  After hearing argument from both parties, the judge declined to extend the order by a full year and instead extended it for six months, over Moreno’s objection.   Moreno argues that the judge abused her discretion by extending the order for six months, rather than a full year, because she improperly considered matters that are outside the purview of c. 209A, namely, the impact that the order would have on Naranjo’s visitation with the child.  We agree.  Although a judge has discretion to extend […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 9, 2013 at 2:14 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,