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.