Decision  DEEC v. Carattini, OC-26-0042 & 0265

Date:	06/17/2026
Organization:	Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Docket Number:	OC-26-0042, OC-26-0265

• Petitioner: Angelique Carattini
• Respondent: Department of Early Education and Care
• Administrative Magistrate: Thomas E. Bocian

Order of Dismissal

In Docket No. OC-26-0042, the petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Law Appeals to challenge the respondent’s determination that she is not suitable for licensure to operate a childcare program.  The respondent’s determination in that matter was based on events or circumstances in the petitioner’s own past.  An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for May 27, 2026.  The petitioner failed to appear.  That same day, I ordered the petitioner to show cause, no later than June 8, 2026, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, owing to her failure to attend the evidentiary hearing.  The order stated that the petitioner’s failure to provide an explanation would result in dismissal of her appeal.  The petitioner has not submitted a timely response to the order to show cause.  Accordingly, her appeal in Docket No. OC-26-0042 is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01(7)(g)(2).

In Docket No. OC-26-0265, the petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Law Appeals to challenge the respondent’s determination, in connection with her application for licensure to operate a childcare program, that a household member is not suitable.  Regardless of whether I were to recommend affirmance or reversal of the respondent’s not-suitable determination in Docket No. OC-26-0265 (relating to the household member), its not-suitable determination in Docket No. OC-26-0042 (relating to the petitioner herself) still would stand because that matter has been dismissed for failure to prosecute.  And the not-suitable determination underlying the appeal in Docket No. OC-26-0042 is an independent basis for the respondent to decline to issue the license for which the petitioner has applied.  The appeal in Docket No. OC-26-0265 is, therefore, dismissed as moot, pursuant to 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01(7)(g)(3).  See City of Lynn v. Murrell, 489 Mass. 579, 582 (2022) (explaining a matter is moot when a tribunal “can order no further effective relief” (quotation omitted)); Sullivan v. Langtry, 233 Mass. 543, 546 (1919) (declaring a case is moot when “[i]t can have no practical result”).  See generally Coward v. Dep’t Early Educ. & Care, No. OC-25-0505 (Div. Admin. Law App. Dec. 2, 2025) (dismissing as moot an appeal of a determination that a household member was unsuitable).

Dated: June 17, 2026                                      

/s/ Thomas E. Bocian____________________
Thomas E. Bocian
Administrative Magistrate
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
14 Summer Street, 4th floor
Malden, MA 02148
Tel:  [phone]
www.mass.gov/dala