- Free Consultation: 617-263-6800 Tap Here To Call Us
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="91px" width="936px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="600px" width="750px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="200px" width="300px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
209A restraining order modified after hearing
Hingham District Court: Prior to retaining our office, our client’s brother- in- law had obtained a temporary restraining order which contained a provision ordering our client to stay away from her parents’ home. The plaintiff brother-in-law claimed that the stay away provision was needed because he and his wife regularly cared for our client’s parents. Our client retained our office to challenge that provision because she was living in her parents’ home and had been doing so for approximately one year, as she had lost her job. Denise Dolan of our office successfully argued that the brother-in-law had no legal standing to request a stay away from the parents’ home, and the court vacated the challenged part of the 209A order.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="300px" width="550px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="110px" width="348px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)