Opinion
13-P-1742
11-13-2014
APRIL B. CALLAHAN v. RICHARD E. CALLAHAN.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se defendant, Richard Callahan, appeals from an order of the Probate and Family Court extending an abuse prevention order (order) under G. L. c. 209A for a period of one year. We affirm.
For ease of reference we refer to each party by his or her first name.
This case is controlled in all material respects by Callahan v. Callahan, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 369 (2014) (Callahan I), which this court decided on Richard's appeal from a prior extension of the same c. 209A order.
Richard and April are the divorced parents of one child. April obtained an initial abuse prevention order on July 6, 2010. It has been extended a number of times, most recently on June 26, 2013, for a period of one year.
In further extending the order at issue here, the judge considered the physical abuse April endured, which resulted in Richard's incarceration, the fear their child had expressed of Richard, the lack of contact permitted between Richard and their child, and the over-all circumstances of the case. Richard raised no objections to April's testimony at the hearing and declined to cross-examine her. None of the circumstances present in Callahan I have changed, with the exception that Richard has been released from custody, a circumstance that further supports the granting of the order. The judge did not abuse his discretion in extending the order for a period of one year. See Crenshaw v. Macklin, 430 Mass. 633, 636 (2000).
As concerns any claimed hearsay violations, the rules of evidence need not be followed in a c. 209A proceeding, as long as there is fairness in the evidence that is admitted and relied upon. See Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597-598 (1995); Szymkowski v. Szymkowski, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 289 (2003). There was no unfairness here.
--------
Order extending G. L. c. 209A order affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Wolohojian & Blake, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: November 13, 2014.