PAMELA RICHARDSON vs. KEITH RICHARDSON.

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
25-P-757
PAMELA RICHARDSON
vs.
KEITH RICHARDSON.
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

2
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
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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.
By the Court (Hershfang,
Tan & Allen, JJ.3),
Clerk
Entered: October 13, 2026.
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).
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.