Case Title: In the Matter of Richard

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13003

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13003 
 
IN THE MATTER OF YVONNE RICHARD. 
 
 
November 12, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Guardianship proceeding, Moot case. 
 
 
The petitioner, Carla Richard, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying her petition for 
extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, as moot.  We 
affirm. 
The petitioner's mother, Yvonne Richard, was the subject of 
the underlying guardianship proceeding in the Probate and Family 
Court.  In January 2020, a judge of the Probate and Family Court 
entered a temporary order expanding the guardianship to include 
the immediate entry of a do not resuscitate/do not intubate 
(DNR/DNI) order in the mother's medical file.  In February 2020, 
the petitioner sought to have the DNR/DNI order vacated by a 
single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, 
§ 118, first par.  The Appeals Court single justice denied the 
petition on March 6, 2020.  Ten days later, the petitioner filed 
her petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, in the county court, seeking relief from the March 6, 2020 
order of the Appeals Court single justice.  The petitioner's 
mother died in April 2020.  Following her death, the underlying 
guardianship proceeding was dismissed by agreement of the 
parties.  A single justice of this court subsequently dismissed 
the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition as moot.  The petitioner 
appealed. 
The petition is moot because the relief that the petitioner 
seeks -- removal of the DNR/DNI order from her mother's medical 
file -- would be of no effect.  See Mullholland v. State Racing 
2 
 
 
 
Comm'n, 295 Mass. 286, 289 (1936) (case is moot "[w]hen, at the 
time of the disposition of a cause, the situation is such that 
the relief sought is no longer available or of any use to the 
plaintiffs and a decision by the court will not be applicable to 
existing rights").  See also Guardianship of Nolan, 441 Mass. 
1012, 1012 (2004) (appeal challenging appointment of temporary 
guardian dismissed as moot after underlying petition for 
permanent guardianship and decree of temporary guardianship were 
dismissed).  Moreover, we have long held that a petitioner whose 
request for interlocutory relief has been considered and denied 
by a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, first par., " is not entitled as a matter of right 
to further review of that order pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3."  
Montanez v. Flahive, 484 Mass. 1009, 1009 (2020), citing Carista 
v. Berkshire Mut. Ins. Co., 394 Mass. 1009, 1009-1010 (1985).1 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying the petition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Carla Richard, pro se. 
 
 
1 The petitioner urges us to decide the issues raised in 
this case despite their mootness.  "Although this court has on 
occasion considered significant issues in moot cases, we only do 
so where the issue has been fully argued on both sides, where 
the question was certain, or at least very likely, to arise 
again in similar factual circumstances, and especially where 
appellate review could not be obtained before the recurring 
question would again be moot" (quotation and citation omitted).  
Martin v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1028, 1029 (2008).  We decline 
to exercise our discretion to do so here.