Boston’s Criminal
Defense Lawyer
Defense Lawyer
Expunging a Massachusetts Restraining Order: Removing a 209A or 258E Order from the Registry
When a Massachusetts 209A or 258E Record Can Be Expunged
A Massachusetts 209A abuse prevention order or 258E harassment prevention order creates a civil court record. Information about the proceeding is also entered in the statewide recordkeeping systems used by Massachusetts courts and authorized criminal-justice agencies.
Ending the order does not ordinarily delete those records. The entry may remain after an order expires, a plaintiff asks to end it, a judge denies an extension, or an appellate court finds that the order should not have issued.
Expungement is available only in rare circumstances. Under current Massachusetts law, the person seeking it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order was obtained through fraud on the court. A false allegation, an unsuccessful complaint, or legal error does not by itself satisfy that standard.
Expungement is also different from correcting an inaccurate registry entry. A person who cannot establish fraud on the court may still have a basis to correct the recorded disposition, such as whether an order was denied, expired, or vacated.
Where the Record Is Kept
G.L. c. 209A, § 7 requires a judge considering a 209A complaint to search the statewide domestic violence record keeping system. The statute also requires the court to transmit protective orders to the appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
G.L. c. 258E, § 9 contains similar requirements for harassment prevention orders. The court reviews information in the court activity record information system and the statewide domestic violence record keeping system before acting on a complaint.
Judges use these records to identify prior protective-order proceedings and determine their status. The registry may contain active orders and closed matters, including proceedings in which an order was denied, expired, terminated, or vacated.
A civil protective-order record is not the same as a criminal conviction or criminal-court disposition, and it is not the same as a CORI entry. If the Commonwealth separately prosecutes an alleged 209A violation or 258E violation, that criminal case creates its own court and CORI records.
Termination, Vacatur, Correction, and Expungement Are Different
Terminating an order ends its restrictions. Modifying an order changes one or more terms. A court may also vacate an order when the governing legal standard is not satisfied. None of those rulings necessarily removes the historical entry from the statewide system.
Expungement is the destruction of the record. It is therefore much narrower than relief from an active order. A person who wants current restrictions changed should review the separate standards for modifying or terminating a 209A order. The same motion should not be used interchangeably for termination and expungement.
Correction addresses a different problem. An entry may accurately show that a case existed but inaccurately describe its disposition. In Xarax X. v. Yale Y., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 699 (2023), the Appeals Court discussed changes adopted by the Trial Court and the Massachusetts Probation Service in 2022. The system now distinguishes among closed-denied, closed-expired, and closed-vacated matters.
A person should first determine whether the complaint, each order, the docket, and the registry agree about what occurred. If the recorded status is wrong, a request to correct it may be appropriate even when the facts do not support expungement.
The Fraud-on-the-Court Standard
In Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006), the Appeals Court held that a judge has inherent authority to expunge a 209A record in a rare and limited circumstance. The moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order was obtained through fraud on the court.
The standard requires more than proof that a witness was mistaken or untruthful. The evidence must establish a deliberate and unconscionable scheme intended to interfere with the court’s ability to decide the case impartially. The scheme must improperly influence the judge or unfairly obstruct the opposing party’s presentation.
Adams illustrates the level of proof required. The trial judge found nineteen false statements under oath in four affidavits, a broader pattern of harassment, and related false complaints to the Board of Bar Overseers. The evidence established a deliberate course of conduct directed at the judicial process, not merely a disputed account of one incident.
The Supreme Judicial Court confirmed the narrow rule in Silva v. Carmel, 468 Mass. 18 (2014). Unless the fraud standard is satisfied, a judge does not have general equitable authority to remove a 209A record simply because leaving it in the system appears unfair.
What Does Not Establish Fraud on the Court?
Massachusetts appellate decisions identify several circumstances that do not, without more, permit expungement:
- The plaintiff failed to prove abuse or harassment.
- The judge denied, terminated, or declined to extend the order.
- The original order was based on legal error or an incorrect view of the parties’ relationship.
- The defendant was denied adequate process at an earlier hearing.
- The plaintiff made a false statement, but the evidence did not establish the broader deliberate scheme required for fraud on the court.
- The allegations were unsupported or irrational, but the plaintiff lacked the deliberate intent required by the fraud standard.
- The plaintiff later agreed that the record should be removed.
In M.C.D. v. D.E.D., 90 Mass. App. Ct. 337 (2016), a judge found that the plaintiff had lied under oath, but the Appeals Court still vacated the expungement order. The evidence did not establish the more systemic or egregious conduct required for fraud on the court.
In B.C. v. F.C., 90 Mass. App. Ct. 345 (2016), the allegations were attributed to a psychotic episode and were not supported by reality. Because they did not result from a knowing scheme to corrupt the judicial process, the court held that the record could not be expunged.
Silva involved a 209A order that should not have issued because the parties lacked the relationship required by the statute. Quinn v. Gjoni, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 408 (2016), involved a claim of inadequate process. Neither type of error established fraud on the court.
An appeal remains important because it can reverse or vacate an unsupported order. It does not, however, provide expungement automatically. The appellate remedy and the fraud-based expungement remedy address different questions.
The Same Standard Applies to 258E Harassment Prevention Orders
In J.S.H. v. J.S., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 107 (2017), the Appeals Court applied the same clear-and-convincing fraud standard to a 258E record. The current Massachusetts Trial Court 258E expungement guideline also states that the criminal-record expungement statutes do not apply to harassment prevention orders.
That distinction matters. The grounds and procedures in G.L. c. 276, §§ 100E through 100U concern criminal records. They do not create an alternative method for destroying a 209A or 258E civil-order record.
A Pending Supreme Judicial Court Case
As of August 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court is considering whether the existing rule allows an exception in an unusual juvenile case. The question presented in SJC-13854 concerns a 258E order issued against a child who was nine years old. A Juvenile Court judge later found that the underlying allegations were unsupported but also found no fraud on the court.
The Supreme Judicial Court has been asked to decide whether the Juvenile Court nevertheless had authority to expunge the record. Unless and until the Court issues a decision changing the rule, the established clear-and-convincing fraud standard remains controlling.
The firm’s related article, A Vacated Massachusetts Restraining Order Is Not an Erased One, follows that pending issue and explains the distinction between an unsupported order and fraud on the court.
How a Motion to Expunge Is Presented
A motion is filed in the court that issued the order. Depending on the original case, that may be a District Court, a division of the Boston Municipal Court, a Juvenile Court, a Superior Court, or the Probate and Family Court.
There is no general administrative petition or waiting period comparable to ordinary criminal-record sealing. The motion must identify the specific fraud, explain how it affected the judicial process, and establish the claim through admissible evidence.
Useful evidence may include sworn complaints and affidavits, complete communications, recordings that were lawfully made, location or travel records, prior judicial findings, and documents showing related false submissions. The importance of any item depends on whether it proves a deliberate scheme rather than a single inconsistency.
The Massachusetts Probation Service maintains the registry and may participate in the proceeding. A motion should therefore address the controlling appellate cases and not assume that the plaintiff’s agreement will resolve the request.
The moving party bears the clear-and-convincing burden. When material facts are disputed, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. Counsel should request specific findings that identify the proven conduct and explain whether it satisfies each part of the fraud standard.
If expungement is ordered, the Trial Court guideline directs that the records be destroyed through the process used for manual and electronic criminal-record expungement. The case remains sealed until final expungement on the sixtieth day.
Correcting an Inaccurate Registry Entry
A correction request should identify the inaccurate field and provide the docket or order that establishes the correct disposition. For example, an entry marked closed-expired may require review if the order was vacated after a contested hearing.
Correction does not erase the proceeding. It ensures that a judge or authorized agency reviewing the history receives accurate information about how the case ended. That distinction can matter in a later protective-order case, bail hearing, probation proceeding, firearms-licensing review, or family-court dispute.
A person should obtain the court docket and copies of the relevant orders before deciding whether the problem is legal, factual, or administrative. A motion to expunge will not be the right response to every inaccurate record.
Protecting the Record During the Original Case
The difficulty of obtaining expungement makes the original hearing important. A defendant should preserve the complaint, affidavit, temporary order, return of service, exhibits, and recording of the hearing when one is available. The docket should accurately state whether relief was denied, terminated, vacated, or allowed to expire.
A legally unsupported order should ordinarily be challenged through a timely appeal. Waiting to seek expungement later cannot convert legal error into fraud on the court. The appellate deadline and the record needed for review should be evaluated promptly.
When related criminal allegations are pending, the decision whether to testify requires separate advice. Statements at a civil hearing may be used in the criminal case. The firm’s page on the Fifth Amendment in a 209A or 258E proceeding explains that issue.
Civil Registry Records and Criminal Records Require Separate Analysis
A 209A or 258E entry and a criminal case arising from the same events are separate records. Dismissal or acquittal of a criminal charge does not remove the civil-order entry. Expungement of the civil entry also does not automatically destroy a criminal-court record.
Criminal sealing and expungement depend on the charge, disposition, statutory exclusions, and applicable waiting periods. Those rules are addressed on the firm’s page about sealing and expunging a Massachusetts criminal record.
The statewide domestic violence record system also differs from the preliminary abuse designation entered in some criminal cases under G.L. c. 276, § 56A. The firm’s guide to CORI, Section 56A, and domestic violence records explains those distinctions.
How Attorney Serpa Evaluates an Expungement Case
The initial review begins with the complete court record. Attorney Serpa compares the sworn allegations, hearing record, judicial findings, and final disposition with objective documents and communications. He then determines whether the evidence concerns ordinary credibility, legal error, an inaccurate entry, or a deliberate scheme directed at the court.
That classification is essential. A correction request, appeal, motion to terminate, or criminal-record petition may provide meaningful relief even when the evidence does not satisfy the narrow expungement standard.
Serpa Law Office represents clients in the Boston Municipal Court, the District Court, the Probate and Family Court, and other Massachusetts courts that issue protective orders. To discuss a 209A or 258E record, call 617.936.0201 or request a confidential consultation.
Related Serpa Law Office Resources
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
