Sonalika Rungta v. Vidur Dhanda. ( 2023 )

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