Supreme Court
No. 2019-156-Appeal. (W 12-361)
Margarita E. Palange :
v. :
Steven J. Palange. :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the
parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be
summarily decided. The defendant, Steven J. Palange, appeals pro se from “[a]ll
[d]ecisions” from an “April 15th, 2019” hearing in the Family Court. Said hearing
resulted in an order entered on May 9, 2019, that resolved several pending
financial matters before that court. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial
justice erred because she (1) failed to consider the best interests of the child; (2)
violated his due process rights pursuant to the United States and Rhode Island
Constitutions; (3) issued a ruling that he contends was contrary to law because
there was no threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff or the minor child; (4)
violated the principle of res judicata by altering a prior Family Court order without
good cause or due process; and (5) violated his right to free speech. After
-1- considering the parties’ written and oral submissions, we conclude that cause has
not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. For the reasons set
forth herein, we affirm the order of the Family Court. 1
The parties have been divorced since December 2013. The final judgment
granted Steven and the plaintiff, Margarita E. Palange, Steven’s former wife, joint
custody and shared placement of their minor daughter, who was born on
December 11, 2009. After the date the judgment was entered, the record indicates
a lull in activity for nearly five years, until May 9, 2018, when Margarita filed a
post-judgment motion and affidavit seeking emergency relief. Margarita averred
that Steven’s conduct towards the minor child had “changed dramatically in the
last year[,]” and she detailed defendant’s struggle with Crohn’s disease and, she
alleged, “manic, paranoid, irrational and aggressive behavior towards” Margarita
and the child. Specifically, Margarita contended that Steven had difficulty getting
the child to school on time and ensuring that her homework assignments were
completed. Margarita also contended that defendant would forget to pack drinks,
snacks, and lunch for the child and that he admitted he oftentimes could not care
for the child while she was in his custody.
Margarita sought emergency relief from the Family Court. Specifically, she
requested that the court suspend Steven’s visitation and that he be permitted to
1 The parties’ first names will be used throughout this order to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. -2- have contact with the child via text, e-mail, or FaceTime only; that he be restrained
and enjoined from harassing Margarita; and that he be ordered to (1) release
reports from his physicians, (2) undergo a psychological evaluation, (3) engage in
parental counseling, and (4) pay child support.
On May 9, 2018, the trial justice granted the ex parte emergency motion and
ordered that Steven’s visitation with the child be suspended and that his contact
with her be limited to text, e-mail, or FaceTime communications. The trial justice
also restrained and enjoined Steven from harassing or interfering with Margarita.
The matter was continued until May 30, 2018, for a hearing as to further relief to
Margarita. The parties have been engaged in protracted proceedings since then.
On February 18, 2019, a trial commenced related to financial disputes
between the parties. Additionally, the trial justice continued to address multiple
motions and objections filed by the parties. The parties rested on April 8, 2019;
and on April 15, 2019, the trial justice entered an order that denied several
motions, reserved decision on Margarita’s request for attorneys’ fees, and
continued the matter to that afternoon for decision on the pending financial
matters. The trial justice also issued a bench decision on April 15, 2019, and an
-3- order entered memorializing that decision on May 9, 2019. That order also
addressed certain financial matters, including Steven’s child-support obligations. 2
The defendant’s notice of appeal to this Court indicates that he is appealing
all decisions from the April 15, 2019 hearing. 3 However, Steven has not provided
a transcript of the proceedings about which he complains. This Court has
recognized that “[t]he deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without providing
the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky business.”
Bailey v. Saunders, 151 A.3d 764, 764 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (quoting 731 Airport
Associates, LP v. H&M Realty Associates, LLC ex rel. Leef, 799 A.2d 279, 282
(R.I. 2002)). Indeed, Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of
2 The travel of this appeal has a convoluted history. Steven’s first appeal to this Court, docketed as No. 19-125-A., was dismissed on June 7, 2019. Thereafter, the instant appeal was remanded to the Family Court “for the sole purpose of the Family Court considering [Margarita’s] requests for: (1) an order enforcing prior child support provisions; (2) a hearing on the motion to enter the April 15, 2019 order; and (3) an order establishing the amount of, and method of payment for, counsel fees.” Because the appeal in No. 19-125-A. had been dismissed, the Family Court properly considered the remand order and determined on August 18, 2019 that “entry of the Order * * * dated April 15, 2019 is moot insofar as said Order has been previously entered[.]” Accordingly, the Family Court properly considered the May 9, 2019 order as the operative order. 3 Steven’s prebriefing statement and oral argument implies that he is appealing the May 9, 2018 ex parte order, which suspended his visitation with the child and restrained him from harassing or interfering with Margarita. However, Steven previously appealed from that order in No. 19-125-A., and this Court dismissed that appeal. Accordingly, any appeal of the May 9, 2018 order of the Family Court is not properly before this Court.
-4- Appellate Procedure requires an appellant to “order from the reporter a transcript
of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant deems
necessary for inclusion in the record.” Steven’s “failure to provide th[is] * * *
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.” Cali se v.
Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164, 1169 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Bergquist v. Cesari o, 844 A.2d
100, 108-09 (R.I. 2004)).
Additionally, in his written submission to this Court, defendant does not
identify the errors he assigns to the trial justice, nor does he articulate with any
specificity why the May 9, 2019 order should be vacated. This Court “deems an
issue waived ‘when a party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a
meaningful discussion thereof.’” Broccoli v. Manning, 208 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I.
2019) (quoting A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2019-156-Appeal. (W 12-361)
Margarita E. Palange :
v. :
Steven J. Palange. :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the
parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be
summarily decided. The defendant, Steven J. Palange, appeals pro se from “[a]ll
[d]ecisions” from an “April 15th, 2019” hearing in the Family Court. Said hearing
resulted in an order entered on May 9, 2019, that resolved several pending
financial matters before that court. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial
justice erred because she (1) failed to consider the best interests of the child; (2)
violated his due process rights pursuant to the United States and Rhode Island
Constitutions; (3) issued a ruling that he contends was contrary to law because
there was no threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff or the minor child; (4)
violated the principle of res judicata by altering a prior Family Court order without
good cause or due process; and (5) violated his right to free speech. After
-1- considering the parties’ written and oral submissions, we conclude that cause has
not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. For the reasons set
forth herein, we affirm the order of the Family Court. 1
The parties have been divorced since December 2013. The final judgment
granted Steven and the plaintiff, Margarita E. Palange, Steven’s former wife, joint
custody and shared placement of their minor daughter, who was born on
December 11, 2009. After the date the judgment was entered, the record indicates
a lull in activity for nearly five years, until May 9, 2018, when Margarita filed a
post-judgment motion and affidavit seeking emergency relief. Margarita averred
that Steven’s conduct towards the minor child had “changed dramatically in the
last year[,]” and she detailed defendant’s struggle with Crohn’s disease and, she
alleged, “manic, paranoid, irrational and aggressive behavior towards” Margarita
and the child. Specifically, Margarita contended that Steven had difficulty getting
the child to school on time and ensuring that her homework assignments were
completed. Margarita also contended that defendant would forget to pack drinks,
snacks, and lunch for the child and that he admitted he oftentimes could not care
for the child while she was in his custody.
Margarita sought emergency relief from the Family Court. Specifically, she
requested that the court suspend Steven’s visitation and that he be permitted to
1 The parties’ first names will be used throughout this order to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. -2- have contact with the child via text, e-mail, or FaceTime only; that he be restrained
and enjoined from harassing Margarita; and that he be ordered to (1) release
reports from his physicians, (2) undergo a psychological evaluation, (3) engage in
parental counseling, and (4) pay child support.
On May 9, 2018, the trial justice granted the ex parte emergency motion and
ordered that Steven’s visitation with the child be suspended and that his contact
with her be limited to text, e-mail, or FaceTime communications. The trial justice
also restrained and enjoined Steven from harassing or interfering with Margarita.
The matter was continued until May 30, 2018, for a hearing as to further relief to
Margarita. The parties have been engaged in protracted proceedings since then.
On February 18, 2019, a trial commenced related to financial disputes
between the parties. Additionally, the trial justice continued to address multiple
motions and objections filed by the parties. The parties rested on April 8, 2019;
and on April 15, 2019, the trial justice entered an order that denied several
motions, reserved decision on Margarita’s request for attorneys’ fees, and
continued the matter to that afternoon for decision on the pending financial
matters. The trial justice also issued a bench decision on April 15, 2019, and an
-3- order entered memorializing that decision on May 9, 2019. That order also
addressed certain financial matters, including Steven’s child-support obligations. 2
The defendant’s notice of appeal to this Court indicates that he is appealing
all decisions from the April 15, 2019 hearing. 3 However, Steven has not provided
a transcript of the proceedings about which he complains. This Court has
recognized that “[t]he deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without providing
the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky business.”
Bailey v. Saunders, 151 A.3d 764, 764 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (quoting 731 Airport
Associates, LP v. H&M Realty Associates, LLC ex rel. Leef, 799 A.2d 279, 282
(R.I. 2002)). Indeed, Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of
2 The travel of this appeal has a convoluted history. Steven’s first appeal to this Court, docketed as No. 19-125-A., was dismissed on June 7, 2019. Thereafter, the instant appeal was remanded to the Family Court “for the sole purpose of the Family Court considering [Margarita’s] requests for: (1) an order enforcing prior child support provisions; (2) a hearing on the motion to enter the April 15, 2019 order; and (3) an order establishing the amount of, and method of payment for, counsel fees.” Because the appeal in No. 19-125-A. had been dismissed, the Family Court properly considered the remand order and determined on August 18, 2019 that “entry of the Order * * * dated April 15, 2019 is moot insofar as said Order has been previously entered[.]” Accordingly, the Family Court properly considered the May 9, 2019 order as the operative order. 3 Steven’s prebriefing statement and oral argument implies that he is appealing the May 9, 2018 ex parte order, which suspended his visitation with the child and restrained him from harassing or interfering with Margarita. However, Steven previously appealed from that order in No. 19-125-A., and this Court dismissed that appeal. Accordingly, any appeal of the May 9, 2018 order of the Family Court is not properly before this Court.
-4- Appellate Procedure requires an appellant to “order from the reporter a transcript
of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant deems
necessary for inclusion in the record.” Steven’s “failure to provide th[is] * * *
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.” Cali se v.
Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164, 1169 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Bergquist v. Cesari o, 844 A.2d
100, 108-09 (R.I. 2004)).
Additionally, in his written submission to this Court, defendant does not
identify the errors he assigns to the trial justice, nor does he articulate with any
specificity why the May 9, 2019 order should be vacated. This Court “deems an
issue waived ‘when a party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a
meaningful discussion thereof.’” Broccoli v. Manning, 208 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I.
2019) (quoting A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v. Andreozzi, 151 A.3d 745, 750 (R.I.
2017)). Furthermore, we “will not ‘search the record to substantiate that which a
party alleges.’” Giammarco v. Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220, 1222 (R.I. 2017)
(quoting McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I.
2016) (mem.)). The defendant utterly failed to develop any cognizable argument
to support his claim that the Family Court justice erred. Accordingly, the
defendant’s claims are not properly before us and, thus, we affirm the Family
Court’s ruling.
-5- Finally, we pause to note that, because the May 9, 2019 order concerned
modification of child support, review of that order must be initiated by way of a
petition for writ of certiorari. See G.L. 1956 § 14-1-52(b) (“Every person aggrieved
by any decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the family court relating to
modification of alimony or of child support, or a finding of contempt for failure to
pay alimony or child support, may, within twenty (20) days after entry of the
decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict, seek review of questions of law in
the supreme court by petition for writ of certiorari * * *.”). However, Steven
instituted the instant review by filing a notice of appeal, in accordance with the
provisions of G.L. 1956 chapter 24 of title 9. Accordingly, in addition to the
foregoing reasons for denying the instant appeal, any challenge of the May 9, 2019
order is not properly before this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Family Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court, this 27th day of January, 2021.
By Order,
/s/ Clerk
-6- Chief Justice Suttell and Justices Lynch Prata and Long did not participate.
Justice Flaherty participated in the decision but retired before its publication.
-7- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Margarita E. Palange v. Steven J. Palange.
No. 2019-156-Appeal. Case Number (W 12-361)
Date Order Filed January 27, 2021
Justices Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
Source of Appeal Washington County Family Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sandra A. Lanni
For Plaintiff:
Richard E. Updegrove, Jr., Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:
Steven J. Palange, Pro Se
SU-CMS-02B (revised June 2020)