Sonalika Rungta v. Vidur Dhanda.

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

22-P-175

SONALIKA RUNGTA

vs.

VIDUR DHANDA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

It appears that in 2014, allegations were made by the

defendant (father) that the plaintiff (mother) in this matter,

involving child custody and visitation, was attempting to remove

the parties' minor child from the United States. Ultimately, a

judge of the Probate and Family Court, apparently unable to

determine whether in fact the mother was attempting to do so or,

rather, whether the father had falsely created computerized

records that made it appear that she had done so, appointed a

guardian ad litem to investigate. The guardian did not complete

his work. In a pretrial order dated September 4, 2015, the

judge terminated the appointment of the guardian ad litem. That

order, now over seven years old, is not at issue in this appeal

and is final.
In a decision after trial dated October 30, 2015,

addressing both the merits of the father's amended complaint for

modification and complaints by each party for contempt, the

judge concluded that "[t]he allegations [that the mother

attempted to spirit the child out of the country] implicated

airline ticket purchases and other actions on computers. The

father is a skilled computer technician. The mother has a

successful dental practice. It appeared to the [c]ourt that it

was as likely as not that mother was trying to move the child as

that father was technologically making it appear as such." The

judge found that the guardian ad litem's "investigation was

intentionally frustrated by father refusing to pay a $1,000.00

contribution to the investigator." The order containing those

findings, again, is not under appeal here and has long since

become final.

In September 2021, the father brought the motion at issue

in this appeal in the Probate and Family Court. It was

captioned "Defendant's Motion for Final Orders and Request for

Evidentiary Hearings on Mother's Attempt to Abduct Child." In

it, the father requested that the court hold evidentiary

hearings and issue orders, presumably containing findings of

fact, concerning the alleged attempt by the mother to abduct the

child. Among other things, the father in his motion

collaterally attacked the findings of the court, many years

2
before, that he refused to pay the guardian ad litem. A second

judge of the Probate and Family Court denied the motion, and the

father has now appealed.

Discussion. Even assuming the order denying the motion is

final, appealable, and properly before us, see Borman v. Borman,

378 Mass. 775, 779 (1979), we see no abuse of discretion or

other error of law in the judge's denial of the father's motion.

To begin with, in his pro se brief, the father has not

identified any live issue in this litigation to which the issues

he raised in the motion –- whether his allegations about the

mother's behavior were true and whether he refused to pay for

the guardian ad litem –- are relevant, nor has he identified

under what other authority the motion judge might have ordered

the evidentiary hearing he requested. In any event, even if the

judge erred in concluding that the father refused to pay for the

guardian ad litem, therefore in some sense incorrectly

terminating the appointment of that guardian, and thus

incorrectly failed to make any findings based on any of the

guardian's work, the appropriate mechanism for addressing any

such errors was in a timely appeal from the offending orders of

the court described above, not in a freestanding motion filed

years later.

Consequently, the judge's denial of the request for an

evidentiary hearing and that findings be made involved no abuse

3
of discretion or other error of law. And, because the law

provided an avenue for the father in a timely fashion to raise

the concerns he now puts forward, the judge's denial of the

instant motion did not deny the father due process of law.

Order entered October 21,
2021, denying motion for
final orders and request
for evidentiary hearings,
affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin,
Englander & Brennan, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: July 13, 2023.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4