Case Title: Jiang v. Liu

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12626

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-01-24T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12626 
 
JIAN JIANG  vs.  QILUN LIU. 
 
 
January 24, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Divorce and Separation. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Jian Jiang, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
The petitioner and the respondent, Qilun Liu, are married 
but in the midst of divorce proceedings in the Middlesex 
Division of the Probate and Family Court Department.  Those 
proceedings involve, among other things, custody issues related 
to the parties' minor child.  In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition, the petitioner sought relief from various 
interlocutory rulings of the probate judge, including, among 
other things, a temporary order relevant to the petitioner's 
parenting time, a temporary order requiring the petitioner to 
pay child support, and a temporary order allowing the respondent 
to travel to China in November 2018 with the parties' child.  
The petitioner also sought to have the probate judge recused.  
The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. 
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that 
"review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be 
obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial 
court or by other available means."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The 
petitioner has not made, and cannot make, such a showing.  In 
fact, he has not even addressed the point, focusing instead on 
the substantive merits of his claims.  Regardless, there is no 
reason why the petitioner could not have sought interlocutory 
2 
 
 
review of the judge's rulings under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first 
par.  See Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 
(1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where 
review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice").  Additionally, as 
to the denial of the petitioner's motion to recuse, there is no 
reason why the denial of any such motion could not be adequately 
addressed in a direct appeal from any adverse judgment.  See 
Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002), citing Doten v. 
Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dep't, 395 Mass. 
1001 (1985). 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Jian Jiang, pro se. 
 
Qilun Liu, pro se.