NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-1211 23-P-1333
R.A.W.
vs.
S.M.W. (and a companion case1).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant mother has sought to appeal from various
temporary orders issued by Probate and Family Court judges, and
also from a later modification judgment awarding her former
husband (father) sole legal and physical custody of the parties'
minor child. We conclude that the notices of appeal she filed
in the trial court do not bring before us the merits of those
temporary orders or of the modification judgment, but only
certain narrow procedural claims, which we conclude do not
entitle the mother to any relief. We also conclude that the
mother is not entitled to relief based on her appeals from
various orders of single justices of this court or the motions
she filed with this court during the pendency of these appeals.
1 R.A.W. vs. S.M.W. Background. The parties were married in 2011; the only
child of the marriage, a daughter, was born in 2014; and the
father filed a complaint for divorce in 2017. The parties'
separation agreement provided for shared legal and physical
custody and set forth a detailed parenting schedule. Those
provisions merged into the judgment of divorce nisi, which
entered in 2019.
1. Modification. The father filed a complaint for
modification in May 2020. As later amended, the complaint for
modification (complaint) alleged that the mother had failed to
provide appropriate living accommodations for the child, meet
her personal hygiene needs, provide financial support for her as
required by the judgment, participate in enrolling her in
school, attend parent teacher events, or pick her up from school
on time (or on some occasions at all) despite being scheduled to
do so. The complaint further alleged that the mother "engaged
in a pattern of harassing behavior toward the [father], making
co-parenting of the child impossible" and causing the father to
obtain a harassment prevention order. The complaint asked that
the judgment be modified to grant the father sole custody2 and to
order a parenting schedule that met the child's best interests.
2 The complaint sought both legal and physical custody. The dispute before us involves both types of custody, and the parties do not differentiate between the two. Therefore, for simplicity, we use the term "custody" herein to encompass both.
2 The complaint was not immediately served on the mother and was
therefore dismissed without prejudice in October 2020.
In late January 2021, the father filed an ex parte
emergency motion seeking a temporary order granting him sole
custody. In a detailed affidavit accompanying his motion, the
father stated that the problems described in his complaint,
although they had lessened somewhat during the summer of 2020,
had resumed and become worse when the child began school that
fall. The father further stated that his daughter had told him
that she and the mother would be moving as early as the coming
weekend, possibly to a hotel. He asserted that continuing under
the judgment's existing custody and parenting provisions would
be detrimental to the child's safety and welfare. A constable's
return on the summons stated that he served the father's
complaint, motion, affidavit, and other materials at the
mother's last and usual residence (an apartment in Andover) on
January 28, 2021.
The next day, January 29, 2021, a judge ordered temporary
sole custody to the father; ordered the parties to appear on
February 10, 2021, for a Zoom hearing; and ordered the father to
serve the mother by 5 P.M. that day (January 29) by e-mail and
by leaving a copy at her last known address. A constable's
return stated that he had served her that day at 2:40 P.M. by
taping the order to the main door of her last and usual
3 residence (the apartment in Andover) and had also mailed her a
copy.
On February 10, 2021, the judge issued another temporary
order (docketed six days later), which granted sole custody to
the father; ordered the mother to have parenting time "as
mutually agreed upon between the parties"; and ordered a
pretrial conference on the complaint to be held by Zoom on
November 17, 2021. The record does not reflect whether the
mother appeared at the February 10 hearing.
The judge issued another pretrial notice and order on July
23, 2021, directing among other things that the November 17
pretrial conference would now be held in person. The notice and
order included a warning that failure to appear at the pretrial
conference could result in an immediate trial or the entry of
judgment in accordance with the temporary order:
"[T]he [c]ourt may order the case to immediate trial on the date of the pretrial conference if the [c]ourt determines at the pre-trial conference that . . . (b) one party, by failure to appear at the pre-trial conference or otherwise, will not present a case; or (c) immediate trial is necessary to accomplish justice. If no parties are present at the pre-trial conference and there is a temporary order in effect, the [c]ourt may issue a judgment containing the terms of the temporary order."
The judge issued another order in November 2021 that changed the
time (but not the day) of the pretrial conference.
At the scheduled pretrial conference, the father appeared,
but the mother did not. After a hearing, the judge on November
4 17, 2021, ordered a modification judgment (docketed November 24,
2021,) that granted sole custody to the father and ordered the
mother to have parenting time "only as mutually agreed upon by
the parties."
The mother then began filing a series of motions aimed at
obtaining relief from the January 2021 temporary order, the
November 2021 modification judgment, or both; we describe here
only a few of those motions. On February 23, 2022, the mother
filed a motion for relief from judgment under Mass. R. Dom. Rel.
P. 60.3 The judge denied that motion by order docketed March 8,
2022. On June 2, 2022, the mother filed another rule 60 motion
for relief from judgment. The judge denied that motion by order
docketed June 16, 2022.4
On June 8, 2022, the mother filed what she labeled a motion
to dismiss -- but is more accurately described as a motion to
vacate -- both the January 2021 temporary order and the November
2021 modification judgment. The judge denied the motion to
3 Such motions are ordinarily filed under Probate and Family Court Standing Order 2-99 and may be referred to as Standing Order 2-99 motions. For clarity, we refer herein to the motions according to the substantive relief that they sought.
4 On June 27, 2022, the mother filed a notice of appeal from both of those orders. She also filed notices of appeal from the January 2021 temporary order and the November 2021 modification judgment. Those three appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 30 of the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and Family Court on June 29, 2023. The mother did not appeal from the dismissal of those appeals. We therefor do not discuss them further.
5 vacate by order docketed June 16, 2022, and the mother did not
timely appeal. Over the ensuing year and three months, the
mother made numerous additional efforts to obtain relief from
both the temporary order and the modification judgment, all of
which were unsuccessful.
2. Motions leading to first trial court notice of appeal.
On September 5, 2023, the mother filed a motion for a temporary
order giving her sole custody. Two days later, she filed
another, largely identical motion. Although neither of these
motions used the word "emergency" in any way, and both of the
motions stated that a hearing was not required, the mother was
dissatisfied with how the court handled them.
Therefore, a few days later, the mother filed an "emergency
motion for temporary order," again seeking sole custody. An
order dated September 14, 2023, and docketed on September 18,
2023, denied this emergency motion but gave the mother leave to
mark the motion for hearing and serve it on the father. Instead
of doing so, the mother appealed from that order, stating on her
notice of appeal "that the request is an emergency and the
decision of the [Probate and Family Court] is prejudiced."
3. Motion leading to second trial court notice of appeal.
On September 25, 2023, the mother sought to file a motion for
emergency reconsideration of the June 16, 2022 order denying her
motion to vacate the January 2021 temporary order and the
6 November 2021 modification judgment. Her emergency motion was
docketed on September 27, 2023, and was denied by order dated
that same day and docketed October 18, 2023. The mother filed a
notice of appeal from that order.
Discussion. First, we explain why neither of the notices
of appeal from trial court orders brings before us the merits of
the award of sole custody to the father. The scope of what
those notices bring before us is, instead, limited to narrow
procedural claims, which we conclude do not entitle the mother
to any relief. Second, and despite the merits not being
properly before us, we discuss the mother's substantive claims
that the judge erred or abused her discretion in ordering the
modification judgment. We conclude that none of those claims is
persuasive. Third and finally, we discuss the mother's appeals
from various orders issued by single justices of this court
while this appeal was pending, as well as the mother's remaining
motions filed in this court.
1. Scope of appeal from trial court orders. a. First
notice of appeal. The first notice of appeal concerns only the
mother's desire that her three September 2023 motions for
temporary orders giving her sole custody be treated as emergency
motions. As explained above, two of those motions were not
denominated emergency motions in any way, and they expressly
stated that no hearing was requested. It therefore was not an
7 error or abuse of discretion to treat them as motions that could
be resolved in the ordinary course, with no special urgency.
See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014) (abuse
of discretion consists of clear error of judgment in weighing
factors relevant to decision, such that decision falls outside
range of reasonable alternatives).
The third motion, although labeled as an "emergency
motion," contained nothing explaining why it presented an
emergency. The motion was therefore denied, but with the
express notation that the mother could mark the motion for
hearing and serve it on the father. In other words, the mother
was informed that she could pursue the motion in the ordinary
course. This, too, was not an abuse of discretion. Although
the mother was understandably anxious to regain custody, she did
not help her cause by filing repetitive motions, or motions that
sought emergency treatment but did not explain, with evidentiary
support, why such treatment was warranted.
b. Second notice of appeal. The second notice of appeal
concerns the denial of the mother's September 2023 motion to
reconsider the June 2022 order denying her motion to vacate both
(1) the January 2021 temporary order and (2) the November 2021
modification judgment. Those two aspects of the September 2023
motion are best discussed separately.
8 As for the January 2021 temporary order, it is important to
understand that that order -- granting sole custody to the
father pending resolution of the complaint for modification --
lost its force once the modification judgment issued and also
granted sole custody to the father.5 That is, the temporary
order was superseded; it had no continuing effect that could be
remedied by any order of the Probate and Family Court (or of
this court, for that matter). Any later challenge to the
temporary order was and is moot, whether that challenge was or
is asserted in the mother's June 2022 motion to vacate the
temporary order, or her September 2023 motion to reconsider the
denial of her June 2022 motion, or in this appeal. Cf. Stolk v.
Stolk, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 903, 905 (1991) (any defects in
temporary order were moot in light of issuance after trial of
order granting identical relief).
As for the November 2021 modification judgment, the
mother's June 2022 motion to vacate that judgment was denied by
order docketed June 16, 2022. It was not until fifteen months
later, in September 2023, that the mother sought reconsideration
of the order denying her motion. It is only the denial of that
motion for reconsideration that is before us -- not the
5 Properly speaking, the January 2021 temporary order lost its effect even sooner, once the judge held a hearing and issued the February 2021 temporary order granting the same relief.
9 correctness of the modification judgment itself, and not the
correctness of the denial of the motion to vacate that judgment.
See, e.g., Piedra v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 39 Mass. App. Ct. 184,
186-187 (1995) (appeal of order denying belated motion to
reconsider judgment does not bring merits of judgment before
appellate court). "[W]e review the judge's denial of a motion
for reconsideration only for abuse of discretion." Merchants
Ins. Group v. Spicer, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 262, 271 (2015).
Here, the mother's motion for reconsideration argued both
that she had not been properly served with the father's
complaint for modification and that she was not aware of the
pretrial hearing on that complaint held in November 2021, her
nonappearance at which led to the entry of the modification
judgment. But the mother's motion expressly acknowledged that
she had already made such arguments on several earlier
occasions. The mother identified no particular issue of fact or
law that the judge had previously overlooked in denying the June
2022 motion to vacate the judgment or that had not been brought
to the judge's attention in, for example, the mother's February
2022 motion for relief from judgment. The mother has therefore
not shown any abuse of discretion in the denial of her motion
for reconsideration.
2. Modification judgment. Although the merits of the
modification judgment are not before us, we nevertheless discuss
10 the mother's various arguments as to why that judgment should be
overturned. None of her arguments is persuasive. Thus, even if
the mother had timely appealed from the modification judgment,
we would affirm it.
a. Section 51A report. The mother argues that because
there was no evidence that a report of abuse or neglect
regarding her care of the child was ever filed under G. L.
c. 119, § 51A, there was no evidence that her care was so
deficient as to warrant giving the father sole custody. But the
mother does not cite, and we do not know of, any legal authority
for the proposition that a section 51A report is required before
a court may alter the custody arrangements previously ordered in
a divorce action. The father's affidavit of January 28, 2021,
provided ample reason for the judge to determine that, even if
there was little if any evidence of abuse,6 the mother was
neglecting the child's needs and that the child's best interests
required that the father be given sole custody.
b. Abandonment. The mother argues that, despite the child
having been left alone for a period of time on January 27, 2021,
the mother never "abandoned" the child within the meaning of
G. L. c. 119, § 39. Again, however, the mother does not cite,
6 The father asserted that on two occasions, one in 2019 and the other in 2020, the mother forced or dragged the child away from the father's car or his residence.
11 and we are unaware of, any authority establishing that a finding
of abandonment is a prerequisite for a modification judgment
regarding child custody. The mother further argues that the
events of that day were at least in part due to the actions of
the father and did not warrant giving him sole custody. But the
mother's parenting deficiencies, as recounted in the father's
January 28, 2021 affidavit, went well beyond the events of a
single day. They gave the judge a strong basis to order a
change in custody.
c. Procedural defects in temporary order. The mother
argues that the January 2021 temporary order was defective
because it was not supported by specific findings of fact, as
required by G. L. c. 208, § 28A, and did not comply with the
"reasonable visitation" provision of G. L. c. 208, § 31. As we
have already discussed, however, any challenge to the temporary
order is moot, particularly in light of the modification
judgment that encompassed the same terms.
d. Abuse. The mother argues that there was no evidence
she had "abuse[d]" the child, as that term is defined in G. L.
c. 208, § 31A, and that the judge did not follow the mandates of
section 31A for specific findings and for any order of
visitation in a case involving such abuse. As explained above,
however, we view the modification judgment as based primarily if
not exclusively on neglect, not abuse. The mother's suggestion
12 that, because there was no "abuse," the judge must have been
biased against her, is unsupported by the record.
e. Federal criminal statute. The mother asserts that
relief is appropriate under a Federal criminal statute, 18
U.S.C. § 242. Such statutes are generally enforced by Federal
authorities; we know of no authority for the Probate and Family
Court to do so. We also note that section 242 concerns the
deprivation of a person's Federal rights, or subjecting a person
to different punishments, "on account of such person being an
alien, or by reason of his color, or race," factors that the
mother has not alleged here.7 18 U.S.C. § 242.
f. Father's current living situation. The mother argues
that the father's current living situation, of which the mother
learned only in late August 2023, is not conducive to the best
interests of the child. Specifically, she asserts that the
father is living with (1) his infant child through his new
relationship, who requires his attention; and (2) his new
partner's son, who is older than the child at issue here and may
compromise her safety, according to the mother's unsupported
7 Relatedly, the mother contends that giving sole custody to the father violated her Federal constitutional rights by imposing punishment on her without due process of law. She cites no authority, and we know of none, establishing that a change in child custody in the context of a divorce could ever constitute "punishment," as that term is generally understood for constitutional purposes.
13 allegation. The mother does not argue, however, that those
circumstances existed at the time of the November 2021
modification judgment.8 Therefore, even if we assumed that the
mother's assertions were true, they would not entitle her to
relief in this appeal.
g. Lack of notice. The mother argues that she was not
given proper notice of the complaint for modification, the
hearing on the February 2021 temporary order, or the pretrial
conference that led to the November 2021 modification judgment.
We now review what the record shows on those issues.
As for the summons and complaint, the constable's return
stated that on January 28, 2021, he had served them "at [the
mother's] last and usual abode (inside door)" at a specific
apartment number and address in Andover. In an affidavit in
support of her February 2022 rule 60 motion, in which she stated
that she never received the summons and complaint, the mother
stated that she moved from the Andover address "in August of
2021." This gave the judge no reason to doubt that the
constable made service at the address at which the mother
actually lived in January 2021. The mother asserted that the
8 Nor has the mother appealed from any order or judgment that considered those circumstances and rejected them as a basis for a further modification. Whether the mother has sought any such modification based on those circumstances is not entirely clear from the record before us.
14 Andover address "was an apartment complex with a hallway with
many other units and residents" and that she did not know what
had happened to the documents.9
As for the father's emergency motion for a temporary order
and notice of a hearing on the motion, the mother's affidavit
stated that she never received them. The constable's return,
however, stated that he had served a copy of that motion at the
mother's Andover address "by taping to main door," as well as by
mail, on January 29, 2021. That copy was endorsed with an ex
parte order granting the father custody and setting a hearing
for February 10, 2021. Further, in response to the mother's
February 2022 rule 60 motion, the father submitted a verified
opposition -- the equivalent of an affidavit -- setting forth in
considerable detail the numerous other ways in which the mother
had been served with the father's emergency motion and notice of
the hearing to be held on it. These included e-mailing the
motion to both of the mother's e-mail addresses on January 28,
9 In her appellate brief the mother further argues that the constable could not possibly have made service "inside [the] door" because the constable could not have gained access without either a key or the assistance of some other resident, neither of which the constable had. The mother has not, however, cited to (1) any evidence in the record supporting this argument or (2) anything showing that she made the argument to the judge. We therefore do not consider it further. See Albert v. Municipal Court of Boston, 388 Mass. 491, 493-494 (1983) (argument not made in trial court cannot be raised for first time on appeal).
15 2021, and e-mailing the judge's ex parte order and hearing
notice to both of the mother's e-mail addresses on January 29,
2021.
As for the pretrial conference that led to the November
2021 modification judgment, the mother claimed that she never
received any notice of that conference. The judge, however,
issued three separate orders giving such notice: the February
2021 temporary order; the July 2021 pretrial notice; and a
November 2021 order that changed the time (but not the day) of
the pretrial conference. We presume that these orders were
mailed to the mother in the ordinary course of business.10
In these circumstances, in light of the many efforts to
notify the mother -- by leaving notice at her last and usual
address, by e-mail, and by regular mail -- it would not have
been an abuse of discretion for the judge to conclude that the
mother, notwithstanding the claims in her affidavit, had more
likely than not received one or more notices alerting her to the
pending modification proceeding.11 Moreover, the judge
reasonably could have concluded that the mother was aware that
10Notably, although the mother later stated that she had moved from the Andover address in August 2021, the docket contains no indication that she ever filed a notice of change of address with the court at any time before the November 2021 hearing.
11Nor would it have been an abuse of discretion for the judge to have held a hearing to resolve any question of notice.
16 she no longer had physical custody of the child. With that
knowledge, the judge could conclude, the mother either (1) knew
or should have known that custody had been altered by a court
order, and should have inquired of the court to learn more; or
else (2) would have believed that the father was in contempt of
the judgment nisi (which had given the parties shared custody)
and would have filed a complaint for contempt of that judgment.
The mother did not do so.12
In short, the judge could reasonably conclude that the
mother knew or should have known of the modification proceeding
in time to appear at the November 2021 pretrial conference where
the modification judgment was ultimately entered. We see no
abuse of discretion in the judge's decision to reject the
mother's claims that lack of notice entitled her to relief from
the modification judgment.
3. Motions in this court; single justice orders. While
her appeal from the trial court orders was pending, the mother
filed numerous motions in this court, seeking various types of
relief. In some instances, a single justice of this court
denied the motion, the mother appealed, and the resulting appeal
from the single justice's order is now before this panel for
12The mother did file a complaint in early March 2022 claiming that the father was in contempt of the January 2021 temporary order, thereby demonstrating that she knew of that order.
17 decision. In other instances, the motion has been referred to
this panel to decide along with the appeals from the trial court
orders and single justice orders. Grouping and addressing these
matters according to the relief at issue, we conclude that the
mother is not entitled to relief with respect to any of them.
a. Matters at issue in no. 23-P-1333. We now explain the
genesis of case no. 23-P-1333 and address the issues that arise
only in that case.13 On October 13, 2023, in no. 23-P-1211, the
mother filed an "emergency motion to decide on docket," asking
that the appeal from the trial court orders be decided on the
papers filed up to that time. On October 25, 2023, a single
justice, treating the motion as one to expedite the appeal,
denied it without prejudice to renewal on the filing of the
father's brief. The mother filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the single justice denied on November 13, 2023. The
mother filed a notice of appeal from the orders, and that appeal
was docketed in this court as no. 23-P-1333, to proceed in
accordance with Rule 15.0 (b) (1) (A) of the Rules of the
Appeals Court, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1010 (2020).
On that appeal, we conclude that the single justice did not
abuse her discretion in declining to expedite the appeal from
the trial court orders before the father had filed his brief,
13Certain other issues that arise in both no. 23-P-1333 and no. 23-P-1211 are discussed later.
18 which he did on December 5, 2023, and did not abuse her
discretion in denying the mother's motion for reconsideration.14
b. Matters at issue in no. 23-P-1211. On December 7,
2023, the mother filed a motion to submit evidence of a lease
agreement. To the extent that the lease agreement at issue was
not in the record before the trial court, we deny the motion,
because our review of the evidence is limited to what was before
the trial court.15
On February 15, 2024, the mother filed a motion to
consolidate no. 23-P-1211 with no. 23-P-1333. We deny the
motion, because consolidation would serve no useful purpose and
could result in more confusion.16
14On December 7, 2023, in no. 23-P-1333, the mother filed a notice of appeal purporting to seek review of this court's lack of action up to that time on appeal no. 23-P-1333, which the mother asserted amounted to a denial of the appeal. Treating this notice as a motion to expedite the appeal, we reject the mother's claim and deny the motion as moot. It would not have been proper to act on that appeal at that time, because the time for the father to file a memorandum of law responding to the issues the mother initially raised in that appeal had not yet expired. See rule 15.0 (b) (1) (A). In a similar vein, on December 11, 2023, in no. 23-P-1333, the mother filed a "motion for judgment," apparently seeking a final ruling in her favor in that appeal. Because we are now ruling on that appeal, the motion for judgment is denied as moot.
15The mother filed the same motion in no. 23-P-1333, and we likewise deny it.
16The mother filed the same motion in no. 23-P-1333, and we likewise deny it.
19 The mother also appealed from single justice procedural
orders that (1) allowed the father's motion to enlarge, by nine
days, the time for filing his brief; and (2) allowed his motion
for leave to file a supplemental record appendix to place
certain trial court documents before this court that were not
included in the mother's record appendix. We conclude that
there was no abuse of discretion in those orders, which granted
reasonable procedural relief and caused the mother no unfair
prejudice.
At various times during the pendency of no. 23-P-1211, the
mother filed motions essentially seeking immediate orders for
temporary or permanent custody of the child. In some instances,
a single justice denied the motion, the mother filed a notice of
appeal, and the resulting appeal was consolidated into no. 23-P-
1211. In later instances, the motion was referred to this
panel.17 Because we have no authority to order a change in
custody other than in the course of reviewing a trial court
order, and because we have reviewed those trial court orders
that are properly before us and have concluded that none of them
should be disturbed, the appeal from the single justice orders
17In one such instance, the mother filed the same motion in no. 23-P-1333, and we deny it as moot.
20 denying the motions seeking custody is dismissed as moot, and
the motions seeking custody are denied as moot.18
On December 11, 2023, and February 15, 2024, the mother
filed motions for attorney's fees based on what she claimed were
the father's various violations of law, or of her rights, before
and during the trial court litigation. We deny those motions,
because the mother -- who is self-represented -- cites no
applicable authority for an award of attorney's fees, and
because she has not persuaded us that the father committed any
such violations.19 The mother also appeals from single justice
orders denying three additional motions for fees. For the same
reasons as we deny the mother's motions for fees, we affirm
those single justice orders.
Finally, on February 9, 2024, the mother filed a notice of
appeal purporting to seek review of "all denials within docket
2023-P-1211." Such a notice of appeal could challenge only
those single justice orders entered in the preceding thirty days
that denied the mother's requests for relief. See Mass. R. A.
18We also deny as moot the mother's motion filed on December 7, 2023, seeking to establish a schedule of parenting time under the requested temporary custody orders.
19The mother also filed a motion to charge the father with various forms of fraud; the single justice denied the motion, the mother appealed, and the appeal was referred to this panel. Because neither the single justice nor this court has the authority to assert or initiate such charges, we affirm the single justice's order denying the motion.
21 P. 4 (a) (1), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019). The only
such order that we have not already addressed above is a single
justice's order dated January 29, 2024, denying the mother's
request that the clerk's office create an assembly of the record
and transmit it to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts for use in a related case pending
there. The single justice's order gave ample reasons for
denying the requested relief, and the mother has shown no error
or abuse of discretion in that order. We therefore affirm it.
Conclusion. In no. 23-P-1211, the trial court order dated
September 14, 2023, and docketed on September 18, 2023, denying
the mother's emergency motion but giving the mother leave to
mark the motion for hearing and serve it on the father, is
affirmed. Also in no. 23-P-1211, the trial court order dated
September 27, 2023, and docketed October 18, 2023, denying the
mother's motion for emergency reconsideration, is affirmed. In
both no. 23-P-1211 and no. 23-P-1333, as to the appeals from
single justice orders, either those orders are affirmed, or the
appeals are dismissed as moot, as stated in this memorandum and
order. Also in both no. 23-P-1211 and no. 23-P-1333, the
22 mother's various motions, to the extent not previously ruled on
by the single justice, are denied.20
So ordered.
By the Court (Sacks, Singh & Walsh, JJ.21),
Clerk
Entered: September 10, 2024.
20The father's motion for an award of his appellate attorney's fees is denied.
21 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.