Injustice of 209A cases

This is from Boston Attorney Dmitry Lev, an expert in handling 209A cases:

"I often have 209A defendant clients insist that roommate Bob or best friend John testify at the 209A hearing. After all, "they can prove that there was no abuse!" But can they? Can anyone? Should anyone have to? In any civil proceeding, including a 209A hearing, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and this burden is called "preponderance of the evidence." In theory, this means that after taking into account all the evidence, the finder of fact (in a 209A case this is the judge) is left to believe that some or all the facts as alleged by the plaintiff are more likely to be true than not. Sometimes this is also referred to as the "more than 50% standard." (As a point of reference, consider the standard of proof in a criminal matter: "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- a much tougher burden to meet.) Now, at the initial 209A ex-parte hearing there is only one set of facts for the judge to consider -- the plaintiff's. Here, a 10 day restraining order will almost always be granted, unless the plaintiff's facts are so unbelievable and so out of this world, that the story cannot add up even if unchallenged. On the other hand, at the 10-day hearing, if the Defendant appears, objects to the extension of the order, and cross examines the plaintiff (through an attorney or without) or gives his/her own testimony, the judge would then be left with having to weigh two sides of a story, and this is where it becomes crucially important whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof. The reality is that few judges are strict enough to hold the plaintiff to the true "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The majority of judges work off a foggy case-by-case approach that rests almost entirely on hunches, one-sided conclusions, and some outright illegal assumptions."