Case Title: Care and Protection of a Minor

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13118

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-10-21T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13118 
 
CARE AND PROTECTION OF A MINOR. 
 
 
October 21, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, the biological father of a child who was 
the subject of a care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile 
Court, appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, 
without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3.  In 2018, after the child was found to be in need of care 
and protection, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal, but 
failed to take the necessary steps to perfect the appeal, and in 
2019, the appeal was dismissed by a judge in the Juvenile Court.  
After his parental rights were terminated in 2019, he filed no 
notice of appeal at all.  The petitioner has filed two previous 
petitions for extraordinary relief, essentially seeking a 
determination that he had a right to a jury trial in the care 
and protection proceeding.  See Care & Protection of a Minor, 
484 Mass. 1015, 1015 n.2 (2020), cert. dismissed sub nom. Liviz 
v. Supreme Judicial Court of Mass., 141 S. Ct. 1129 (2021); Care 
& Protection of a Minor, 478 Mass. 1015 (2017).  In the instant 
petition, the petitioner sought an order that the Juvenile Court 
assemble the record in the care and protection proceeding and 
transmit it to the Appeals Court.  In his brief, the petitioner 
offers no reason why the denial of extraordinary relief was an 
error of law or abuse of discretion or why he should be entitled 
to revive his 2018 appeal (from the care and protection 
adjudication) or take an appeal from the 2019 termination of his 
parental rights at this late date, nor do we discern any on this 
record.1  See, e.g., Boisvert v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 1027, 
 
1 The petitioner suggests in his brief, without factual or 
legal support, that most of the Justices of this court are 
2 
 
1028 (2021) (denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, reviewed 
for clear error of law or abuse of discretion). 
 
 
As noted, this is the third time the petitioner has 
attempted to invoke our general superintendence power in this 
matter.  We have clearly advised him that extraordinary relief 
from this court is not required when there is an adequate 
alternative remedy, and that his claimed right to a jury trial 
was an issue that could and should have been raised in the 
ordinary appellate process.  Care & Protection of a Minor, 484 
Mass. at 1015, citing Adoption of Douglas, 473 Mass. 1024, 1026 
(2016).  See, e.g., Pinney v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 1029, 1030 
(2021) (petitions under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are not substitutes 
for ordinary trial and appellate process).  There is simply no 
basis for extraordinary relief here.  Indeed, as stated, the 
petitioner does not even attempt to argue in his brief that any 
such basis exists.  Moreover, as in Care & Protection of a 
Minor, 484 Mass. at 1015, the petitioner has failed to provide 
an adequate record of the proceedings and has failed to "name as 
respondents and make service upon all parties to the proceedings 
before the lower court," a matter of fundamental fairness to 
those parties.  Id., quoting S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 
(1996).  Given the absence of any basis for extraordinary relief 
and the petitioner's repeated failure to comply with the 
rudiments of appellate procedure, the petitioner is hereby on 
notice that future baseless attempts to invoke our extraordinary 
power to obtain relief relating to the care and protection and 
parental termination proceedings in the Juvenile Court may 
result in the imposition of sanctions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
The petitioner, pro se. 
 
 
 
 
 
obligated to recuse themselves in this case and that therefore a 
quorum cannot be obtained.  That is incorrect.  The single 
justice who denied relief on the petition before us did not 
participate in this decision, see Mass. R. A. P. 24 (c), as 
appearing in 481 Mass. 1654 (2019), but no other Justice is 
required to recuse because of prior rulings.