R.A.W. v. S.M.W. (And a Companion Case).

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.

23