Court Case Record CYNTHIA MONTEIRO vs. MARIO ELIAS 2013-J-0334 UID(229d)


Court Case Number: 2013-J-0334

Case Number2013-J-0334
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNorfolk Probate & Family
CourtNorfolk Probate & Family
Court Address
Field Date08/02/2013
Close Date08/07/2013


Cynthia MonteiroPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Michelle K. Breckenridge, Esquire WithdrawnMario EliasPro Se Defendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/02/2013 #1 ***Financial Statements IMPOUNDED***
08/02/2013 #2 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by Cynthia Monteiro.
08/02/2013 #3 RE#1: ALLOWED FORTHWITH. The appellant's Affidavit of Indigency appears regular and complete on its face, and indicates that the appellant is indigent. The court hereby allows the Motion to Waive entry fee. Notice sent.
08/02/2013 #4 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Cynthia Monteiro. ^
08/02/2013 #5 Docket Sheets, received from Norfolk Probate & Family. ^
08/05/2013 #6 Additional documents, received from Cynthia Monteiro. ^
08/07/2013 #7 RE#2: The plaintiff, Cynthia Monteiro, has filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of the orders dated July 23, 2013, of the Norfolk Probate and Family Court that restored the custody arrangement ordered by the parties' judgment of divorce following a temporary expansion of mother's visitation and denied the plaintiff's request that the motion judge recuse herself. The petition is denied. On review of the papers, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the motion judge abused her considerable discretion in restoring the custody arrangement ordered by the judgment of divorce pending final judgment on the pending complaint for modification of that judgment. Section 28A of chapter 208 of the General Laws requires findings that "clearly demonstrate the injury, harm or damage that might reasonably be expected to occur if relief pending a judgment of modification is not granted." The plaintiff has failed to show that such a finding was required in this matter. Similarly, the plaintiff must clearly demonstrate a mistake of law or an abuse of discretion to successfully challenge the motion judge's denial of the plaintiff's motion for recusal. Neither is apparent on the record submitted by the plaintiff. As such, the petition is DENIED. (Vuono, J.) *Notice/Attest.
12/19/2013 #8 Motion to withdraw as counsel for Mario Elias, filed by Michelle K. Breckenridge.^
12/20/2013 RE#5: Denied without prejudice to renewal supported by certificate of service on defendant. *Notice
12/26/2013 Motion to withdraw as counsel for Mario Elias, filed by Michelle K. Breckenridge.^
12/30/2013 RE#6: Allowed. *Notice
01/06/2014 Notice of appeal, filed by Cynthia Monteiro. ^
01/17/2014 RE#7: The within notice of appeal appears to have been misfiled by the plaintiff. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 4(a), the notice shall be forwarded to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court. *Notice/Attest.
01/17/2014 Letter with attachment from the Appeals Court to Norfolk Probate and Family Court.^
01/17/2014 Memo: A copy of Paper #8 (included attachment) sent to Cynthia Monteiro.