In re Kyla C., 79 A.3d 846

The Family Court terminated respondent Bowen’s parental rights to Kyla C. on June 30, 2009 after a bench trial.
On June 8, 2010 the court granted pro se Bowen a transcript-related in forma pauperis request to support an appeal.
On August 3, 2010 the court vacated the 2009 termination decree and entered a new termination decree to allow Bowen to appeal.
Guardian ad litem (GAL) moved to dismiss Bowen’s August 3, 2010 appeal for failure to timely transmit the record and for best interests of Kyla.
At a November 16, 2010 hearing Bowen’s counsel argued transcript issues and potential extensions due to incarceration; Bowen’s dismissal was ordered on November 23, 2010; Bowen then timely appealed from that dismissal on December 10, 2010.
The Supreme Court ultimately held Bowen’s appeal was not properly before the court because the 2009 decree was vacated and a new decree entered, and it denied the appeal on the merits, affirming dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 11 and related requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is properly before the court given the vacatur and reentry of a new decree.	Bowen contends the August 3, 2010 decree and timely notice of appeal were valid.	The court exceeded authority by vacating the 2009 decree to allow an appeal; the appeal is not properly before us.	Appeal not properly before the court; court lacks jurisdiction.
Whether the guardian ad litem’s dismissal for failure to transmit the record and lack of extension was proper.	Bowen argues potential excusable neglect and extensions should be considered.	GAL and court correctly dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 11 and lack of timely transmission.	Dismissal affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Whether Bowen’s alleged excusable neglect justified extending time for transmission of the record.	Bowen, pro se, relied on lack of transcript ordering and incarceration to justify delay.	There is no excusable neglect; Bowen had a duty to comply and familiarize himself with procedures.	No excusable neglect; extension not warranted.

Ferranti v. M.A. Gammino Construction Co., 109 R.I. 634 (1972) (vacatur/extension rule; cannot extend time by vacating and reentering decree)
Pelosi v. Pelosi, 50 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2012) (trial court may dismiss for noncompliance with Rule 11; standard of review for abuse of discretion)
Estate of Mitchell v. Gorman, 970 A.2d 1 (R.I. 2009) (appointment of counsel; dismissal standards for appeal)
Small Business Loan Fund Corp. v. Gallant, 795 A.2d 531 (R.I. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard in extension for transmission of record)
Daniel v. Cross, 749 A.2d 6 (R.I. 2000) (excusable neglect standard for extensions of time)