Gianareles v. Zegarowski

When Mother’s child was one year old, Mother’s grandmother (Grandmother) sought to have herself appointed as the child’s guardian. After Mother purportedly consented to Grandmother’s appointment as the permanent guardian, the judge appointed Grandmother as the child’s permanent guardian. Mother filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), arguing that the judgment was void for lack of due process because she was not appointed counsel during the guardianship proceedings. The motion was denied. After Mother appealed the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion, Mother filed a petition in the county court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, alleging that she had a constitutional right to have counsel appointed for her in the underlying proceeding. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petition, concluding that Mother had an adequate alternative remedy through an appeal from the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Mother had an adequate alternative remedy, Mother failed to satisfy the basic threshold requirement for obtaining extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Gianareles v. Zegarowski" on Justia Law