Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hearing on October 22, 2001

Text: The next flurry of activity in this matter occurred in October 2001. Cesario filed motions to adjudge Bergquist in contempt and two motions seeking to vacate the restraining orders of December 5, 2000, and August 31, 2001. Bergquist responded by filing a motion to adjudge Cesario in contempt yet again. In anticipation of the October 22, 2001 hearing date, Cesario issued a subpoena to the Bergquist children's court-appointed guardian ad litem in the Family Court divorce action, as well as to one of the children's therapists and to the psychologist who evaluated the parents. The guardian filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, which motion was granted on October 22, 2001. Cesario also was ordered to pay the guardian a counsel fee of $500. Cesario asks us to vacate this order on the grounds the Trial Justice abused his discretion, stating that a guardian ad litem as a private independent attorney for the minors, has a duty to testify in any Court in which evidence or allegations of harm is being committed to the minors. Here, Cesario's failure to provide relevant portions of the transcript is fatal. We find nothing in the record to suggest that the motion justice abused his discretion by quashing the subpoenas or by ordering a counsel fee. It is well established that [t]he failure to provide the Supreme Court with a sufficient transcript precludes a meaningful review and leaves us no alternative but to deny the appeal and uphold the trial justice's findings. Patterson v. Patterson, 792 A.2d 746, 747 (R.I. 2002) (mem.) (citing Pineda, 712 A.2d at 860-61). Because Cesario did not submit the transcript required for a thorough review of the proceedings, we must uphold the hearing justice's order to quash the subpoenas.