PAMELA RICHARDSON v. KEITH RICHARDSON (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Keith Richardson (husband), the former spouse of Pamela Richardson (wife), appeals from an amended judgment of divorce nisi issued by a Probate and Family Court judge on February 22, 2024, nunc pro tunc to January 31, 2024, following a trial. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the procedural history and relevant facts as the judge found them, supplemented with undisputed facts from the record. We reserve certain facts for later discussion.

The parties were married in August 2007 and had two children together during the marriage. The wife filed a complaint for divorce in May 2020. Custody and parenting time with the children were the major disputed issues in the case. On June 23, 2021, with the parties’ assent, the judge appointed a guardian ad litem (first GAL). The first GAL filed an initial report on October 31, 2021. A status conference was held on February 15, 2022, and the judge reappointed the first GAL to submit an updated report, which was filed on May 2, 2022. Soon thereafter, the first GAL was removed from the case, and the judge appointed a second GAL.¹

After the status conference, the judge issued an “Order Following Pre-Trial/Status Conference” (trial order) that addressed, inter alia, the admission of the GAL report as an uncontested exhibit and the procedure for any party to request to cross-examine any GAL called at trial. The trial order stated that “[a]ny party requesting to cross examine the GAL must arrange and secure the GAL's attendance (by subpoena or otherwise), and shall be responsible for the fees to testify for the scheduled trial date.”

At a hearing on September 9, 2022, the judge denied the husband's oral request to strike the first GAL's report but stated that if the report was introduced into evidence, the husband had the ability to “conduct direct examination or cross-examination.”

The trial took place over three days, starting on January 17, 2023, and ending on February 16, 2023. On the first day of trial, the husband admitted that he had not made any attempt to subpoena the first GAL to testify. The husband acknowledged that the judge had previously told him at the September 9, 2022 hearing that he would be able to cross-examine the first GAL and that he “apparently made an error in misunderstanding [his] ability to summons” the first GAL. After trial, the judge found that it was in the children's best interests for the wife to have primary physical custody.

Discussion. The husband argues that (1) he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine the first GAL at trial; (2) the judge failed to properly instruct the second GAL; (3) the first GAL displayed bias and a lack of respect to the parties; (4) the judge failed to control the first GAL; (5) the judge failed to provide a decision in the best interests of the children; (6) the judge made material errors in her findings of facts; (7) there was ethical misconduct by a court clerk; (8) there was ethical misconduct by the wife's attorney; and (9) the judge failed to render judgment in a timely manner.

We first address the husband's argument that he was denied due process because he was unable to cross-examine the first GAL. The husband contends that the judge erred in not allowing him to cross-examine the first GAL at trial because the judge had previously assured him that he would have the opportunity to do so. The argument lacks merit. The judge's trial order, dated February 15, 2022, placed the parties on notice that “[a]ny party requesting to cross examine the GAL must arrange and secure the GAL's attendance (by subpoena or otherwise).” To be sure, the husband acknowledged on the first day of trial that he had not followed the trial order and had not issued a subpoena for the GAL to appear.

The husband's reliance on Gilmore v. Gilmore, 369 Mass. 598, 604 (1976), is misplaced. In Gilmore, the Supreme Judicial Court held that it was error for a judge to refuse to permit a GAL to testify despite relying on the GAL's report in determining the issue of custody of the children. See id. Here, by contrast, the judge never prohibited the husband from calling the first GAL to testify. In fact, the judge asked the husband at trial whether he had summonsed the first GAL. Importantly, as stated above, at a hearing approximately four months prior to the first trial date, the judge confirmed with the husband his ability to cross-examine the GAL if he wished, which the husband acknowledged at trial.

The husband's reliance on Probate and Family Court Standing Order 1-05, Standard 1.2 for Category F Guardians ad Litem Investigators (2005), is also misplaced. Standard 1.2 states that “[a]fter conducting the investigation and writing a report, the GAL shall be available for trial and for possible deposition. If the parties do not reach an agreement about their case, the GAL may be subpoenaed by a party or the court may request that the GAL be present for trial.” Id. The language in the standing order, like the language in the judge's trial order, states that a party may subpoena the GAL.

Although we acknowledge that the husband was self-represented, and may have been unfamiliar with the trial procedures he was required to follow, he is not entitled to be treated any differently than a litigant who is represented by counsel. See Roby v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Concord, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 410, 412 (2018).

Because the husband's remaining arguments have not been adequately briefed, they do not rise to the level of appellate argument and are thus waived.² See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).

Amended judgment of divorce nisi dated February 22, 2024, nunc pro tunc to January 31, 2024, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At a hearing on May 17, 2022, the first GAL told the judge that the husband's behavior toward her started escalating and that he would not stop contacting her. She said that the husband's behavior “prevented [her] from actually engaging in what the Court had ordered [her] to do ․” The first GAL subsequently sought a harassment prevention order to prevent the husband from contacting her. The judge removed the first GAL from the case on May 27, 2022, and appointed the second GAL.

2.   The husband also requests, inter alia, that the judge's order be amended to reflect that (1) “the QDRO be paid out within 60 days of the date of promulgation of judgment”; (2) the wife shall provide health insurance coverage for the husband; (3) neither party shall provide child support or alimony to the other; and (4) the parties shall have shared physical custody of the children “with a true 50/50 split.” Because he makes no argument in support of these requests, they do not rise to the level of appellate argument and are thus waived. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).