Title: Care and Protection of a Minor
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12403
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2017

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12403 
 
CARE AND PROTECTION OF A MINOR. 
 
 
November 10, 2017. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Notice of appeal.  Notice, Timeliness. 
 
 
 
The father of a child who is the subject of a care and 
protection proceeding in the Norfolk County Division of the 
Juvenile Court Department filed a petition pursuant to G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, with a single justice of this court seeking relief 
pursuant to the court's general superintendence power.  The 
father is an attorney who is representing himself.  The record 
of material he has put before us is confusing, to say the least.  
It appears that the child has been removed from his parents' 
custody and that the father contests the removal.  In his G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition he sought, among other things, a jury 
trial in the care and protection proceeding.  He also claimed 
that the Department of Children and Families has violated his 
due process rights and that "non-party participants" in the care 
and protection proceeding should have been sequestered during 
certain motion hearings in the Juvenile Court. 
 
 
The single justice denied the petition without a hearing on 
May 5, 2017.  The petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of 
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on May 10, 2017.  
While the certiorari petition was pending, the petitioner filed 
a motion with the single justice, on August 7, 2017, for leave 
to file a late notice of appeal from the denial of the G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition.  The single justice denied the motion on 
September 12, 2017.  The petitioner then filed a notice of 
appeal from the denial of that motion, and his appeal was 
entered in this court on September 22, 2017.  Shortly 
 
 
thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied his 
certiorari petition, on October 2, 2017.  
 
 
1.  The petitioner's appeal to this court involves only the 
denial of his motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.  
The single, very limited issue that is properly before us is 
whether the single justice erred or abused his discretion in 
denying that motion.  Nevertheless, the multitude of papers that 
the petitioner has filed in this court focus almost exclusively 
on the underlying merits of his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, and 
address only minimally the issue of the late notice of appeal.  
He has set forth no cogent argument regarding that motion; he 
has not shown good cause or excusable neglect for his late 
filing; and he has not put forth any argument at all as to why 
the single justice erred or abused his discretion.  In any 
event, we find no error. 
 
 
2.  Even if the single justice had authorized a late 
appeal, the petitioner would have fared no better.  It was 
incumbent on the petitioner "to create a record -- not merely to 
allege but to demonstrate, i.e., to provide copies of the lower 
court docket entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, 
orders, recordings, transcripts, or other parts of the lower 
court record necessary to substantiate [his] allegations -- 
showing both a substantial claim of violation of a substantive 
right and that the violation could not have been remedied in the 
normal course of a trial and appeal or by other available 
means."  Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. 
denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998), and cases cited.  He did not do 
this.  As we have noted, he has filed a multitude of papers in 
this court, as he did before the single justice, all of which 
are difficult to comprehend.  His filings do not articulate any 
clear arguments regarding a violation of a substantive right, or 
the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.  On the basis of 
the materials before him, the single justice acted well within 
his discretion in concluding that this case does not present a 
situation where extraordinary relief from this court is 
required. 
 
 
The order denying the motion for leave to file a late 
notice of appeal is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
The father, pro se.