MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, K.B. (mother), appeals from an extension of an abuse prevention order requiring her to stay away from her minor daughter and not contact her.
3
See G. L. c. 209A. The plaintiff, W.B. (father) on behalf of H.B. (daughter), obtained the initial ex parte order from the Probate and Family Court where the parties’ divorce proceedings had been heard. The initial order entered in October 2019, and it was extended several times, after hearing, for durations of varying length. The defendant did not appeal from any of those orders until an order entered on August 2, 2021, extending the order until January 14, 2026. The mother timely appealed from this last extension order. We affirm.
Background. The record on appeal is not complete. We summarize the facts to the extent permitted by the material that has been provided to us. The parties were married on October 10, 2003, and separated on or about June 6, 2011. The parties’ daughter was born on January 14, 2008. On December 8, 2017, a divorce modification judgment entered granting the father sole legal and physical custody of the daughter, with limited supervised visitation for the mother. The basis of the decision to grant the father full custody was that the mother was suffering from mental illness, including paranoia and delusions.
On October 23, 2019, the father sought a c. 209A order after the mother attempted to pick the daughter up from school, and, after the school prevented her from doing so, she attempted to retrieve the daughter when she was dropped off at her home by the school bus. In his affidavit, the father asserted that he was concerned the mother might abduct the child and leave the country. An ex parte order entered on October 23, 2019, and, after a two-party hearing, was extended to April 27, 2020. The order was later extended to July 27, 2020, at which point it was modified to provide for limited telephone contact between the mother and the daughter.
4
That order was extended to August 2, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the order was further extended to January 14, 2026. The mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the order entered on August 2, 2021, and she specifically declined to order a transcript of any of the proceedings.
Discussion. The mother contends that the judge abused her discretion in extending the order because (1) the original order was predicated on false allegations of domestic abuse and kidnapping; (2) the extension order was made primarily out of spite, ill will, or some motive unrelated to “valid evidence” showing a reasonable and ongoing fear of imminent serious physical harm; and (3) the judge, in issuing the extension order, failed to properly consider the fathers mental illness and his “deliberate” violation of the preceding abuse prevention extension order entered on August 4, 2020.
The requirements for extending a G. L. c. 209A order are well established. See G. L. c. 209A, § 3; E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558, 561-563 (2013); Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739-740 (2005); G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 393 (2018). We review the issuance or extension of a c. 209A order “for an abuse of discretion or other error of law.” E.C.O., supra at 562. In this case, however, we cannot determine whether the order in question was properly issued because the mother has failed to provide a sufficient record for us to conduct an appropriate review. We note that the original c. 209A order is not before us, and we cannot review the mothers arguments regarding the extension order without a transcript of the hearing.
5
“As appellant, it is the defendants obligation to provide an adequate record for review.” Smith v. Jones, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 134 (2006). Because the mother failed to carry her burden “to furnish a record that supports [her] claims on appeal,” Hasouris v. Sorour, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 607, 610 n.4 (2018), quoting Arch Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Bartlett Health Enters., Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406 (1992), there is no basis on which we can conclude that the judge abused her discretion in extending the order.
Order dated August 2, 2021, extending abuse prevention order affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
3
. Specifically, the order prevented the mother from abusing or contacting the daughter, and required the mother to stay at least one hundred yards away from the daughter and to stay away from the daughters residence and school. The order was modified to allow the mother to “continue to have a telephone call with the minor child, [H.B.,] each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The duration of the call shall be [fifteen] min. and terminate at 7:15 p.m. Topics restricted per judgments of 12/8/17 and 5/16/18.”
4
. Specifically, the order stated that “the defendant shall have a telephone call with the minor child, [H.B.], every Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The father/plaintiff shall supervise said phone calls and shall terminate said phone call if the defendant/mother discusses inappropriate topics as defined in the courts judgments of 12-8-17 and 5-17-2018.” We note that the order was amended to correct a scriveners error in the date of the May judgment, which should have been “5-16-2018.”
5
. The record is devoid of any suggestion of a sufficient justification for the mothers failure to provide a transcript of any of the proceedings.