Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ADOPTION OF BILL.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In a previous related memorandum and order pursuant to our rule 1:28, we concluded that the Juvenile Court had not obtained jurisdiction over the child pursuant to G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a). Accordingly, without addressing the mother's substantive challenge to the judge's visitation order,2 we vacated the decree and remanded the matter for resolution of the jurisdiction issue. Adoption of Bill, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2019). The Juvenile Court subsequently contacted a court of competent jurisdiction in California and obtained jurisdiction nunc pro tunc to August 8, 2014. Because this resolves the jurisdictional flaw, we reinstate the decree and address the mother's substantive challenge to the visitation order. For the reason stated below, we affirm the decree in full.
We review decisions on posttermination visitation orders for abuse of discretion. Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 63 (2011). A judge may issue such an order only if it is in the best interests of the child, determined in large part by whether the child has a significant bond “ ‘with the biological parent’ whose rights have been terminated” or with a preadoptive family. Id. at 63-64, quoting Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 563 (2000). Here, the judge found that posttermination visitation was not in the child's best interests, noting that there was no significant bond between the child and the mother but that there was one between the child and his foster family, who hope to adopt him. Where the child was an infant when he came into care and the mother has had limited contact with the child since -- only six visits in three years -- we can discern no abuse of discretion. There is no evidence that the child shows any need for the mother's support in transitioning to his life with a new family.
Decree entered March 8, 2017, reinstated and affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2. Apart from the jurisdictional issue, the mother did not challenge the findings regarding her unfitness or the termination of her parental rights to the child.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 18-P-53
Decided: May 23, 2019
Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)