CourtSupreme Judicial Court
DocketSJC 13993
ReleasedOctober 26, 2026
Full opinionRead the full text of the decision
Question
Does a parent who unsuccessfully sought interlocutory review of temporary custody orders under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par., in the Appeals Court have a right to seek further review of the same orders through a G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition?
Rule
Supreme Judicial Court Rule 2:21(2) requires a petitioner under G.L. c. 211, § 3, to show that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21(2).
The single justice of the Appeals Court may grant interlocutory review of certain trial court orders under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par. There is no right to appeal from a single justice’s denial of relief under that statute. Bishay v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 487 Mass. 1012, 1012-1013 (2021), held that a petitioner who was unsuccessful in obtaining relief through an available avenue is not thereby entitled to relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3.
Custody proceedings are reviewable in the ordinary appellate process, and a petitioner’s claim of immediate and ongoing harm does not render that process inadequate. Matter of an Impounded Case (No. 5), 497 Mass. 1038, 1039 (2026).
Holding
The petitioner cannot make the showing required by S.J.C. Rule 2:21(2). He sought interlocutory review of temporary custody orders under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and a single justice denied relief. That the petitioner was unsuccessful in the Appeals Court does not render that avenue inadequate or entitle him to relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. The court applied Bishay and Matter of Children, 479 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2018), which held that a petitioner who has already sought and been denied interlocutory review “is not entitled to any additional review at this juncture.”
The petitioner’s argument that the temporary orders cause immediate and ongoing harm does not change the result. Such contentions “do not render inadequate an appeal in the ordinary course,” particularly in custody proceedings. The court also declined to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal that were not presented to the single justice below.
Result
The judgment of the single justice denying the G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition was affirmed.
Players
- Court: Supreme Judicial Court, on appeal from a single justice's denial of a G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition
- Decision: Per curiam
- Below: Single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (petition filed April 29, 2026); earlier proceedings before a single justice of the Appeals Court (November 2025, February 2026); underlying Probate and Family Court proceedings (2021-2026)
- Petitioner/Appellant: Charles Margis, divorced father seeking modification of custody orders
- Respondent/Appellee: Nicole Margis, divorced mother
- Counsel for Petitioner: Kirsten A. Zwicker & Alyssa M. Kelly
- Counsel for Respondent: Sheila M. Tierney
A divorced father who lost an interlocutory appeal over temporary custody orders tried again with a new petition. The Supreme Judicial Court shut the door. Charles Margis cannot use G.L. c. 211, § 3, to relitigate custody orders that a single justice of the Appeals Court already declined to disturb.
The Custody Fight
Charles and Nicole Margis divorced in January 2022. Their agreement gave them shared physical and legal custody of two children. In April 2023, Nicole filed a complaint for modification. Charles filed his own modification complaint in June 2023.
The Probate and Family Court issued a series of temporary orders. In April 2025, a judge found Charles in contempt for violating the custody schedule. By June 2025, the trial court gave Nicole sole physical custody. A September 2025 order reaffirmed that arrangement.
The First Appeal
Charles sought interlocutory review of the September 2025 order in the Appeals Court under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par. A single justice granted the petition in part in November 2025 and told the trial judge to reassess the custody arrangements and enter a new order with findings.
The trial judge complied. Charles went back to the Appeals Court in January 2026 seeking review of the new order. A single justice denied that petition and a supplemental petition in February 2026. Charles filed a notice of appeal, which was struck on the ground that there is no right to appeal from a single justice’s denial of relief under section 118.
The Second Petition
In April 2026, Charles filed a G.L. c. 211, § 3 petition with a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. He sought relief from the same interlocutory orders he had challenged in the Appeals Court. He also asked for a stay of enforcement and reassignment to a different judge. The single justice denied the petition. Charles appealed.
What the Court Held
The per curiam decision affirmed. S.J.C. Rule 2:21(2) requires a petitioner to show that review cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from a final judgment or by other available means. Charles could not make that showing.
Charles argued that he had exhausted other avenues for interlocutory review, making a c. 211, § 3 petition appropriate. The court rejected this reading. That Charles was unsuccessful in the Appeals Court does not mean that avenue was inadequate. The court cited Bishay v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, which held that failure to obtain relief through an available process does not entitle a petitioner to use c. 211, § 3.
The court also applied Matter of Children, which addressed nearly identical circumstances. That 2018 decision held that a petitioner who sought and was denied interlocutory review under section 118 “is not entitled to any additional review at this juncture.”
The Harm Argument
Charles argued that the temporary custody orders caused immediate and ongoing harm, justifying extraordinary relief. The court disagreed. Custody proceedings are reviewable through the ordinary appellate process, and claims of immediate harm do not render that process inadequate. The court cited Matter of an Impounded Case (No. 5), a 2026 decision, for this proposition.
Charles also raised issues on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court that he had not presented to the single justice below. Some of these issues related to trial court proceedings that occurred while his appeal was pending. The court declined to consider them, citing Carvalho v. Commonwealth.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a well-established principle: G.L. c. 211, § 3, is not a second bite at the apple. A litigant who seeks and fails to obtain interlocutory review through the standard process cannot repackage the same claims as a petition for extraordinary relief.
The court treated temporary custody orders the same way it treats other interlocutory rulings. A parent who disagrees with them can seek review from a single justice of the Appeals Court under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first par., as Charles did twice. Once that review has been sought and denied, the parent “is not entitled to any additional review at this juncture,” and a claim of ongoing harm does not make an appeal from the final judgment inadequate.
For practitioners, the point is that c. 211, § 3, is not a backup for an unsuccessful § 118 petition. The SJC’s extraordinary superintendence power requires a showing that review cannot adequately be obtained by other means, and losing in the Appeals Court is not that showing.
Read the full opinion: Margis v. Margis (SJC-13993, October 26, 2026).