and monitored by a court clerk or other court personnel,” and that even if a given proceeding is not among those that are routinely recorded, it "shall be recorded at the request of any party or at the request of the presiding justice or judge.” Recording of Trial Court Proceedings, Me. Admin. Order JB-12-1 (as amended by A. 11-13) (effective Nov. 22, 2013). We have not yet applied JB-12-1 to probate proceedings, however, and in any event, it is silent as to a party’s attempt to record her own hearing. Finally, given the remedy set forth in M.R.App. P. 5(d)-(e), of which the mother availed herself in this case, we discern no violation of her right to procedural due process based on her inability to record the hearing herself. See In re Dustin C., 2008 ME 89, ¶¶ 3, 5-7, 952 A.2d 993 (<HOLDING>); In re Amberley D„ 2001 ME 87, ¶ 11, 775 A.2d
holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that the unavailability of appellate review of an order appointing a permanency guardian does not violate due process given the existence of additional procedural safeguards affording notice and an opportunity to be heard as well as the right to petition to terminate the guardianship and stating that there is no constitutional right to appeal in any event holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard