Can a Vacated Restraining Order or Harassment Prevention Order Be Expunged From Your Massachusetts Record?

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center

A Juvenile Court judge issued a harassment prevention order against a fourth grader after crediting the testimony of a classmate who said the child had harassed her. A later school investigation did not substantiate that the child intentionally injured the classmate. The same judge terminated the order after finding that the evidence did not establish harassment. The child then asked the judge to erase the record of the order from the statewide registry. In Piper P. v. Barron B., SJC-13854, decided in October 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a court cannot expunge the record of a harassment prevention order from the statewide registry after a judge vacates the order for insufficient evidence. This post explains what the decision means for a person whose 258E harassment prevention order or 209A abuse prevention order has been terminated and who wants the record removed.

The statewide registry and what goes into it

The Commissioner of Probation keeps a statewide domestic violence record-keeping system, known as the DVRS. When a court issues a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E or an abuse prevention order under G.L. c. 209A, the clerk must send information about the order to the Commissioner of Probation for entry in the DVRS. G.L. c. 258E, Section 9 makes that transmission mandatory. The record remains in the DVRS whether the order stays active or a judge later terminates or vacates it.

What the SJC decided in Piper P. v. Barron B.

The Supreme Judicial Court held that G.L. c. 258E does not authorize a court to expunge a harassment prevention order from the DVRS after the order is vacated for insufficient evidence. The Court explained that the statute requires the clerk to transmit every order to the registry and does not distinguish between an order that stays in force and one a judge later terminates. The Court followed Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997), which held that the comparable abuse prevention order statute creates a complete record-keeping system and gives a judge no implied power to expunge a 209A record. The Court applied the same reasoning to 258E harassment prevention orders and affirmed the judge’s refusal to expunge the record. Chief Justice Budd dissented and would allow a judge to consider expungement where the plaintiff is a child under twelve and the judge has found that the allegations lacked factual support.

When a judge can expunge a restraining order or harassment prevention order record

A judge keeps a narrow authority to expunge the record of a harassment prevention order or an abuse prevention order in one situation. The judge can order expungement where the person who sought the order obtained it through fraud on the court. In Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006), the Appeals Court recognized that authority and limited it to conduct that corrupts the court’s own process. The person who asks for expungement must prove the fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge’s decision to end an order after the evidence no longer supported it is not a finding of fraud, and that a witness who sincerely describes events the evidence later fails to confirm has not committed fraud on the court.

What this means for a person with a vacated order on record

A person whose harassment prevention order or abuse prevention order has been vacated keeps a record of the order in the DVRS. The termination of the order ends its restrictions, but the registry entry stays in place. A police officer or a judge can still see the vacated order when they review the registry, including a judge who weighs a later request for a restraining order or harassment prevention order. A person who wants the entry removed must prove fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence. A later finding that the evidence did not support the allegations does not establish fraud on the court.

Sealing a criminal record is a separate question

A harassment prevention order and an abuse prevention order are civil orders, and the DVRS is a civil registry. Different statutes and a separate court procedure govern the sealing and expungement of a criminal record. A person who has both a vacated order and a related criminal charge should ask a lawyer to review each record on its own terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Judicial Court held in Piper P. v. Barron B. that a court cannot expunge a harassment prevention order from the statewide registry after a judge vacates the order for insufficient evidence.
• The Commissioner of Probation enters every 258E harassment prevention order and 209A abuse prevention order in the DVRS. The entry stays whether the order remains active or a judge terminates the order.
• A judge can expunge the record only where the person who sought the order obtained it through fraud on the court, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
• A sincere but mistaken allegation, a later finding that the evidence did not support the order, and the termination of the order do not establish fraud on the court.
• Separate statutes and a separate court procedure govern the sealing of a criminal record.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

• Expunging a Massachusetts 209A Restraining Order or 258E Harassment Prevention Order From the Registry
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders: Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Orders (Abuse Prevention Orders): Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• Dismissed Domestic Charges and Your Massachusetts Record
• Sealing and Expunging a Massachusetts Criminal Record
• Massachusetts Restraining Orders and Harassment Prevention Orders