Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a seventeen-year-old high school student accused of having sexually assaulted a fifteen-year-old schoolmate. P is the mother of the young woman who was allegedly abused ('daughter'). P filed a complaint and supporting affidavit on behalf of her daughter and obtained an ex parte abuse prevention order against the D pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, § 4. P alleged that D offered to drive the daughter home from school and, along the way, stopped at his house, invited the young woman inside, and then forcibly sexually assaulted her in his bedroom. D contests the occurrence of the incident. One day after an ex parte emergency temporary abuse prevention order was issued, see G. L. c. 209A, § 4, D was arrested on charges arising from the alleged assault. D was arraigned on these charges and subsequently released on bail. He was suspended from high school as a result of the arrest. The judge extended the abuse prevention order for a period of one year. D timely appealed the issuance of the order and shortly thereafter filed a motion to suspend the order pending appeal. The judge denied D's motion to suspend the abuse prevention order pending appeal, and D timely appealed the denial of that motion as well. The district attorney's office entered a nolle prosequi on all pending charges related to the alleged sexual assault, and D immediately filed a motion to modify the abuse prevention order and requested an evidentiary hearing on his earlier motion to vacate. The judge denied D's motion to modify, and D once again timely appealed. D maintains that P failed to show the existence of a 'substantive dating relationship' and consequently, the abuse prevention order against him was improperly issued and extended.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.