#10, Drano Series
|
|
Notice of Appeal from the Denial of the G.L. c. 211 sec. 3 Petition
to the Full Bench of the
Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court
The single justice, Justice Ireland, of the Supreme Judicial Court, issued a one-word denial. The single-justice session is considered a "trial court." That means a claim (by Notice of Appeal, SJC Rule 2:21) may be made to the full bench. The claim must present a novel question of law or an abuse of discretion. It is due within seven days of hearing Judge Ireland's decision: in this instance, by Monday, December 4, 2000.
UPDATE: I have amended the previously updated the claim/notice today (Saturday, December 2) to add that Judge Manzi had denied Brian's first Emergency Motion for Custody and that both Judge Manzi and Judge Rockett refused to hear his ex parte Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus, that Chief Justice Dunphy refused to assign another judge to the case, and that before the hearing in front of Manzi took place, mom had left Florida. [See (f), (g), and (h) in the Amended Notice of Appeal.]
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURTESSEX, SS. Civil Action No. ________
---------------------------------
Brian Meuse
Plaintiff/Appellant
No. SJ-2000-0496
v. C.A. No. 2000-J-0635
Essex P&F No. 99W-1466-PA-1
Susan Pane
Defendant/Appellee
----------------------------------AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Brian Meuse in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals pursuant to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 2:21, from the denial of relief in the single-justice session (Ireland, J.) in the Supreme Judicial Court to the full court. This case presents a novel question of law and an abuse of discretion by Justice Mary McCauley Manzi in the Essex County Probate and Family Court, to wit:
(1)Whether an unwed father, concerned about the serious medical condition of his infant and seeking proper diagnosis of and treatment for the child by local-area medical professionals, had the right (i) to take his infant out of harms' way in Florida (where the mother had fled with the child without the consent of the father or the court), (ii)to not return the child to the mother after a scheduled visit, and (iii)to return to Massachusetts (the home state, which the court had declared would exercise jurisdiction), where(a) there was a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (b) paternity was and still is undisputed, (c) prior to the mother fleeing the Commonwealth, father had been awarded custody pursuant to G.L. c. 209A (which later expired), (d) mother had not been awarded
custody by a Massachusetts court, (e) the unwed mother was
seriously neglecting and abusing the infant by failing to provide her
with the prescribed necessary physical and occupational therapy to keep her muscles from atrophying, (f) before he took the child, Judge Manzi refused to hear his ex parte Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (brought ex parte because fear that mother who was "on the move" would move again), (g) before he took the child, Chief Justice Dunphy refused to assign another judge to the case; and then (h) before he took the child, he learned the mother had secretly left Florida (breaching a stipulation entered into on 7 August 2000) and had left Florida; and if the father had the right, when he got access to his daughter, to take the infant out of harms' way the award of custody to the mother must be vacated and an award of custody be made to the father;(2) Whether it was both a denial of due process and reversible error to award custody to the mother 11 days after the father had taken their infant from Florida, given that (a) the hearing at which custody was awarded was scheduled after a short order of notice was allowed to mother for a hearing on her motion for custody and child support, (b) father's counsel was not given proper notice of the motion for a short order (i.e., she was given literally 10 minutes notice by FAX), (c) father's counsel was unable to communicate with her client about the scheduled hearing, so that father had no notice of the hearing and was therefore absent, and (d) because father was not present in court, the court refused to read father's emergency motion for custody and all the medical evidence attached thereto and refused to allow father's counsel to argue his motion; and
(3) Whether Justice Manzi abused her discretion by refusing to hear Brian Meuse's Emergency Motion for Custody and allowing the mother's motion for custody. .
Respectfully submitted,
PLAINTIFF BRIAN MEUSE,
By his attorney,
28 November 2000 Barbara C. Johnson
Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833
Everyone who is outraged by judges abrogating their responsibilities, pleaseblow your horns continuously as you pass the location of each and every courthouse, particularly in Massachusetts,
write to each and every representative and senator, particularly in Massachusetts,
write Letters to the Editors, particularly in Massachusetts,
call each radio and television station, particularly in Massachusetts,
call each judge's lobby, particularly in Massachusetts, and ask, "Have you earned your paycheck, benefits, and future pension today?"