Case Title: Care and Protection of Penelope

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12215

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-18T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12215 
 
CARE AND PROTECTION OF PENELOPE. 
 
 
May 18, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Failure to prosecute. 
 
 
 
In October, 2016, the father of a child who was the subject 
of a care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile Court filed 
a petition in the county court for relief from the denial of his 
request for an injunction preventing the child from being 
removed from the United States.  A single justice of this court 
denied relief, and, in November, 2016, the father appealed to 
this court.  He filed a motion for an extension of time to file 
his brief and was given until December 23, 2016, to file it.  He 
did not do so.  The child's mother, with the child's assent, has 
moved to dismiss the appeal, as has the Department of Children 
and Families.1  See Mass. R. A. P. 19 (c), 365 Mass. 867 (1974).  
In response, the father does not explain his failure to file a 
brief in this matter, but makes unsubstantiated allegations 
concerning the child's treatment outside this country.2  The 
father has had ample time to file a brief in this matter and has 
not done so.  Although the father is appearing pro se, we hold 
                     
 
1 In addition, this court issued a notice preceding 
dismissal under the May 17, 1988, standing order concerning 
dismissals of appeals and reports pending in this court for lack 
of prosecution.   
 
 
2 The father also suggests that this appeal cannot be 
dismissed until his underlying appeal to the Appeals Court is 
resolved.  Without passing on the correctness of that 
proposition, we note that the father did not file a brief in 
that appeal, and it was dismissed for lack of prosecution.   
2 
 
 
him to the same standards in this regard as litigants 
represented by counsel.  See, e.g., Rasheed v. Commonwealth, 440 
Mass. 1027, 1027 (2003); Solimine v. Davidian, 422 Mass. 1002, 
1002 (1996).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack 
of prosecution.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
Harriet Schechter for the mother. 
 
Roberta M. Driscoll for the child. 
 
Brian R. Pariser for Department of Children and Families. 
 
The father, pro se. 
 
 
 
                     
 
3 The Department of Children and Families also suggests that 
the appeal is moot and that the courts of Massachusetts lack 
jurisdiction due to a child custody proceeding in Switzerland.  
Due to our disposition, we need not address these issues.