Singh v. Capuano, 468 Mass. 328

Singh obtained an ex parte G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order on Feb. 14, 2013 directing no contact, a 50-yard stay-away, no abuse, and temporary custody of the child to Singh.
The hearing after notice was scheduled within ten days; at the Feb. 22 appearance the judge declined Singh’s request for an evidentiary hearing and extended the order only until April 11, 2013, citing Probate Court and criminal proceeding concerns.
At the April 11 appearance the same judge again refused an evidentiary hearing, vacated the no-contact and stay-away provisions over Singh’s objection, and extended only the no-abuse provision for three months.
On July 11 the parties had an evidentiary hearing before the original judge; Capuano invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify; the judge refused to consider an adverse inference and extended the no-abuse provision for an additional three months but did not restore no-contact or stay-away provisions.
Singh appealed seeking full one-year extensions and reinstatement of the initial protections; while appeals were pending, later District Court orders (including a three-year extension) were entered and Singh did not contest those later orders, rendering the appeals moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of hearing after ex parte order	Singh: hearing must be held promptly (within 10 court business days)	Court/defendant: continuance permissible due to criminal proceedings or forum concerns	Hearing must be prompt; continuances require demonstrated need and careful weighing; criminal proceedings/forum preference are not adequate alone
Vacating/no-contact or stay-away provisions without hearing	Singh: judge cannot vacate provisions over objection without evidentiary hearing	Judge: believed matter belonged in Probate or implicated criminal testimony issues	Court: must not vacate any part of a c. 209A order over objection without hearing and evidence
Use of adverse inference when defendant asserts privilege	Singh: adverse inference appropriate given defendant’s refusal to testify	Capuano: privilege against self-incrimination precludes adverse inference	Factfinder may draw, but is not required to draw, an adverse inference; judge must consider privilege and weigh all circumstances rather than adopt a blanket rule against inference
Duration of orders and factors to consider	Singh: orders should be at least one year unless plaintiff requests shorter or evidence justifies shorter	Judge/other concerns: shorter orders justified by visitation rights or pending criminal matters	Duration must focus exclusively on plaintiff’s need for protection; shorter orders should not be routinely issued over plaintiff’s objection

S.T. v. E.M., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 423 (advises prompt hearings and that judges should decide scheduled c.209A matters when parties are ready)
Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592 (permissibility of drawing adverse inference in civil case despite pending criminal proceedings)
Moreno v. Naranjo, 465 Mass. 1001 (guidance that orders after notice should generally be for a minimum of one year)
Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734 (principles on duration and purposes of c. 209A orders)
Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574 (discussion of meaning and limits of judicial discretion)