Expunging a Massachusetts 209A Restraining Order or 258E Harassment Prevention Order From the Registry

Circumstances in Which a Massachusetts 209A Restraining Order or 258E Harassment Prevention Order Can Be Expunged

A Massachusetts 209A abuse prevention order is a restraining order. A 258E harassment prevention order is a civil order that prohibits harassment. The court that issues either order keeps a civil court record of the case. Information about the proceeding is also entered in the statewide recordkeeping systems used by Massachusetts courts and authorized criminal-justice agencies.

The court record and the statewide record entries ordinarily remain after the order ends. 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 Massachusetts law, the person seeking expungement 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 establish fraud on the court.

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.

The Statewide Registry and Other Records of the Order

G.L. c. 209A, § 7 requires a judge considering a complaint for a 209A restraining order 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 the court activity and registry 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 kept in the statewide domestic violence record keeping system, separate from the criminal record. G.L. c. 209A, § 7 requires a judge considering a complaint for a 209A restraining order to search the statewide system. However, the record appears on no CORI report. The Commonwealth may separately prosecute an alleged 209A restraining order violation or 258E harassment prevention order violation. The criminal case has its own court and CORI records.

The registry entry remains after the order ends. In Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge has no authority to order a record expunged from the statewide system.

The Court explained that the Legislature directed that the system hold a record of all orders, both active and inactive. The Appeals Court later recognized a narrow exception, described below, for an order obtained through fraud on the court. A person seeking expungement must therefore prove fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, rather than show that the order should not have issued.

A different rule applies to local police records. The third paragraph of G.L. c. 209A, § 7 directs the court to notify the appropriate law enforcement agency whenever an order is vacated and to direct that agency to destroy all record of the vacated order. The Court in Vaccaro read the third paragraph of § 7 to refer to the agency that was asked to serve the order, not the statewide registry.

Termination, Vacatur, Correction, and Expungement Are Different

A judge who terminates an order ends its restrictions. A judge who modifies an order changes one or more of its terms. A court may also vacate an order when the governing legal standard is not satisfied. A judge who terminates, modifies, or vacates an order does not necessarily remove the historical entry from the statewide system.

Expungement is the destruction of the record. Expungement 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 restraining order. The same motion should not be used interchangeably for termination and expungement.

Correction is the remedy for an entry that accurately shows that a case existed but inaccurately describes 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. Since 2022, the statewide system has distinguished 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. A request to correct the recorded status may be appropriate if the status is wrong, 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 the record of a 209A restraining order 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.

In Adams, 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). Without proof that satisfies the fraud standard, a judge does not have general equitable authority to remove the record of a 209A restraining order simply because leaving the record in the system appears unfair.

What Does Not Establish Fraud on the Court?

Under Massachusetts appellate decisions, none of the following circumstances, without more, is a ground for 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. The Appeals Court held that the record could not be expunged because the allegations did not result from a knowing scheme to corrupt the judicial process.

Silva involved a 209A restraining 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 useful, because an appellate court can reverse or vacate an unsupported order. An appeal 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 the record of a 258E harassment prevention order. The Supreme Judicial Court confirmed the fraud standard in Piper P. v. Barron B., SJC-13854, described below. The Massachusetts Trial Court guideline on expunging a 258E harassment prevention order also states that the criminal-record expungement statutes do not apply to harassment prevention orders.

The grounds and procedures in G.L. c. 276, §§ 100E through 100U concern criminal records. Sections 100E through 100U do not create an alternative method for destroying the record of a 209A restraining order or a 258E harassment prevention order.

Orders Vacated for Insufficient Evidence

In Piper P. v. Barron B., SJC-13854 (Oct. 5, 2026), the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of expungement after a judge terminated a 258E harassment prevention order for insufficient evidence. The Court held that neither the statute nor the courts’ inherent authority permits expungement on that ground without proof of fraud on the court. The firm’s case update on Piper P. v. Barron B. discusses the school investigation, the Court’s reasoning, and the separate opinions.

The Court also distinguished the statewide registry from the records held by the police department that received the order for service. G.L. c. 258E, § 9 requires a court that vacates an order to notify that department and direct it to destroy its record of the order. That requirement does not apply to the Commissioner of Probation’s statewide record. G.L. c. 258E, § 10 separately restricts public inspection of court records involving a juvenile, with limited exceptions.

How a Motion to Expunge Is Presented

A motion is filed in the court that issued the order. The issuing court may be a District Court, a division of the Boston Municipal Court, a Juvenile Court, a Superior Court, or the Probate and Family Court, depending on the original case.

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 usefulness of each item depends on whether the item 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. The moving party should not assume that the judge will allow the motion because the plaintiff agrees to it.

The moving party bears the clear-and-convincing burden. An evidentiary hearing may be necessary when material facts are disputed. Counsel should request specific findings that identify the proven conduct and explain whether it satisfies each part of the fraud standard.

The Trial Court guideline directs that, after a judge orders expungement, 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. After a correction, a judge or authorized agency reviewing the history receives accurate information about how the case ended. A judge or licensing authority may rely on the corrected entry 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

Expungement is difficult to obtain, so a defendant should prepare fully for the original hearing. 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. A defendant who waits and seeks expungement later cannot establish fraud on the court by proving legal error. The appellate deadline and the record needed for review should be evaluated promptly.

A defendant who faces related pending criminal allegations needs separate advice about whether to testify. Statements at a civil hearing may be used in the criminal case. The firm’s page on the Fifth Amendment in a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order proceeding explains the choice whether to testify.

Civil Registry Records and Criminal Records Require Separate Analysis

A registry entry for a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order 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. The rules for criminal sealing and expungement 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 the difference between the statewide record system and the § 56A designation.

How Attorney Serpa Evaluates an Expungement Case

Attorney Serpa begins the initial review 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.

The available remedy depends on whether the evidence concerns ordinary credibility, legal error, an inaccurate entry, or a deliberate scheme. 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 the record of a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order, call 617.936.0201 or request a confidential consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Massachusetts Restraining Orders and Harassment Prevention Orders
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Orders (Abuse Prevention Orders)
• How to Get a 209A Restraining Order in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders
• How to Get a 258E Harassment Prevention Order in Massachusetts
• Terminating or Modifying a 209A Restraining Order
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Order and 258E Harassment Prevention Order Expungement FAQs