#61,
Drano Series
Decision of the
Supreme Judicial Court
on the Consolidated Appeals
of the Denial of a Petition for Relief from Closed Hearings
and
Denial of Relief in the Nature of Mandamus*
See Drano Series #41, Decision on Closed Hearing,
Drano Series #47, Interloctory Appeal Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 118,
Drano Series #48, Supplemental Brief to the Petition in #47,
Drano Series, #49, Second Supplemental Brief to the Petition in #47,
Drano Series #58, Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, sec. 3 (about the removal of children), and
Drano Series #59, the Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, sec. 3 (about the closed hearings) [NOTE: The decision in Drano Series #41 was on this petition], and
Drano Series #60, the Consolidated SJC Rule 2:21 Appeal of the Denials of Relief about the closed hearings and the removal of the children
With the decision below, it is clear that the court will make any excuse either to avoid having to take a responsible position on serious matters or to cover the butts of judges in the lower courts. The children in this case have been in danger: there is not proof positive but there are reliable disclosures by the children as well as physical evidence of abuse.
Given that the Commonwealth removes children from families on naked accusations, reasonable people would expect that the children would be returned to their father in the serious circumstances of this case.
I disagree vigorously with the procedural ruling by the SJC that the father can wait for final judgment and then appeal. Proof was shown that the judge below, incompetent if not malicious or biased against men, has refused to hear any of the substantive issues in this case since April, has procrastinated on acting on a motion to recuse, and is not even willing to hear a contempt complaint until December. The judge is in gridlock. When the judge is in gridlock, that IS when a writ of mandamus IS appropriate!!!
Read Drano #58, #59, and #60 and decide for yourselves whether the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was correct or not.
drano-footer
A word about the Google ads being added to this site
Sooooo . . . not only can the few dollars from the ads pay for the expenses of this website, you, too, can also benefit: you can learn on your own which attorneys and which self-help groups in those areas of the law are available to help you.
Hoping that the ads will give you sufficient information to satisfy your requests for recommendations and referrals, I have been reformatting the files on this website to accommodate the maximum number of ads that Google's policy allows per file.
By the way, I have no control over which ads appear. They are chosen by Google according to the content -- I think -- in each file.
HELP: Any HTML programmer know how to get rid of the extra <> below the Google ads at the top of the files and the <> in the upper right-hand corners of the Google ads on the right-hand side of the screen? i've wasted hours, if not days, trying to figure out WHY they are there in some files and not in others . . . and how to get rid of them. THANKS!!
Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833