the natural parents visitation rights, see Weinschel v. Simple, 56 Md.App. 252, 466 A.2d 1301, 1305-06 (Spec.App.1983), plaintiffs’ visitation arrangement was informal, not contractual. 2 . F.J.’s status is not at issue in this case. The averments in the complaint concerning F.J. appear designed to demonstrate plaintiffs’ fitness to regain custody of the four children adopted by L.O. 3 . Because the order was entered "out of the presence of the parties and counsel,” the thirty-day period for filing the notice of appeal did not begin to run "until the fifth day after the Clerk of the Superior Court has made an entry on the docket ... reflecting the mailing of notice by that clerk,” excluding weekends and legal holidays. D.C.App. R. 4(a)(3); see Singer v. Singer, 583 A.2d 689 (D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs had thirty days from August
holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment holding that because fiveday period under dcapp r 4a3 was separate from thjrtyday period for filing appeal weekends and holidays were not counted in five days holding that a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the 14day period for filing a notice of appeal holding  108b2 extended unexpired period for filing appeal but holding appeal was untimely