ADOPTION OF NOA v. << (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a trial, a Juvenile Court judge found the mother of the child, Noa, unfit and ruled that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights.² The judge also ordered that the custodian shall have the sole discretion to permit any posttermination and postadoption contact between the mother and child. The mother appeals solely from so much of the decree pertaining to the visitation order. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the judge's undisputed findings of fact, supplemented by uncontroverted evidence from the record, and reserve certain facts for later discussion. The Department of Children and Families (department) became involved with the mother when she was a child because of several concerns, including domestic violence, homelessness, and substance misuse. The mother was subsequently removed from her biological family and placed in the department's custody until she was adopted by another family when she was nine years old. The mother returned to the department's custody as an adolescent because of concerns related to aggressive behaviors, sexual exploitation, substance misuse, and her mental health. The mother remained in the department's custody until she was eighteen years old.

The mother was seventeen years old when she became pregnant with Noa, and she moved in with the father and the paternal grandmother. The child was born in April 2020; the parents, along with the child, continued to live with the paternal grandmother.

The mother had a history of using cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl. After the child's birth, the department had concerns about the parents’ substance misuse and domestic violence in their relationship. In August 2022, the department received a report, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 51A, of a dispute between the parents, which led to the father's arrest because he was seen slapping the mother while she was holding the child. The department created an emergency service plan for the family but continued to have the same concerns about ongoing domestic violence between the parents and their substance misuse. The department's investigation, conducted pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 51B, supported the concern of neglect of the child by the parents. The department filed a care and protection petition on August 24, 2022, and a judge of the Juvenile Court granted the department temporary custody of the child. On August 26, 2022, the department placed the child with her paternal grandmother, with whom she continues to reside.

After the child's removal, the mother was offered weekly visits with the child. Over the next eighteen months, the mother did not maintain consistent communication with the department and missed numerous visits with the child. During the fall of 2023, the department did not have a working phone number or valid address for the mother, and the department social worker did not have a consistent way to contact the mother. During this time, the mother had only three visits with the child. At times, the mother failed to attend visits despite confirming the visits ahead of time. When the mother confirmed a visit, but did not attend, the child became upset and anxious, cried unconsolably, and wet her pants. The grandmother asked for the frequency of the visits to decrease from weekly to monthly. The child appeared happier and her behavior improved after the visits became less frequent.

The child appeared to enjoy the visits but often focused her attention on toys and sometimes struggled to engage with the mother. At the January 2024 visit, the child ran into the visitation room toward the toys, not toward the mother. Overall, the mother and child took some time to engage and interact with one another despite the mother's efforts.

After the mother was released from incarceration in January 2024, her visits with the child, which were scheduled monthly, went well, and she did not miss any visits between January 2024 and August 2024. Noa was happy to see the mother and often ran to greet and hug her. At a June 2024 visit with Noa, the mother brought her other child and struggled to engage both children. At the end of that visit, Noa cried and said she wanted to stay with the mother.

The mother exhibited limited knowledge about Noa and never asked the social worker about the child's life. She did not know Noa's favorite foods, did not know if the child was involved in any summer activities, had not spoken to her preschool teacher, did not know why she had an individualized education plan, and did not know the name of her pediatrician.

In June 2024, the child exhibited behavioral issues including biting and hitting after her visits with the mother. The paternal grandmother enrolled the child in therapy. The child's behavioral issues subsided after she started therapy and the visits became less frequent, eventually stopping because of the mother's lack of participation. Since September 2024, the mother had not asked the department about the child.

The trial began on July 23, 2024, and continued over several nonconsecutive days in August 2024. The judge allowed the department's motion to reopen the evidence, and the evidence closed in October 2024. On February 12, 2025, the judge issued a decree terminating the mother's parental rights.

Discussion. The mother contends that the judge abused her discretion by declining to order specific postadoption visitation and leaving visitation to the discretion of the adoptive parent. We are not persuaded. After finding a parent unfit, a judge “has broad discretion to determine what is in the child's best interests with respect to custody and visitation with biological family members.” Adoption of Rico, 453 Mass. 749, 756 (2009). An order for posttermination and postadoption visitation is “grounded in the over-all best interests of the child, based on emotional bonding and other circumstances of the actual personal relationship of the child and the biological parent, not in the rights of the biological parent nor the legal consequences of their natural relation.” Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 562 (2000). “A judge should issue an order of visitation only if such an order, on balance, is necessary to protect the child's best interest.” Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 65 (2011).

Here, the judge found that no significant bond existed between the mother and the child. See Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. at 63-64 (in deciding whether to order visitation, judge should consider whether child has “a significant, existing bond with the biological parent” [citation omitted]). The judge found that the mother had not prioritized visits with the child and had missed many months of visits; the mother's last visit was in July 2024. The inconsistency of the mother's visits negatively affected the child and led to behavioral issues, which subsided after the child started therapy and the visits became less frequent or stopped. “The purpose of [posttermination and postadoption] contact is not to strengthen the bonds between the child and their biological [parents],” but rather to assist children as they navigate transitioning from one family to another. Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. at 564-565.

The judge also found that the child had a “significant emotional bond” with her grandmother, with whom she has lived since August 2022. Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. at 563 (requiring postadoption contact “would usually be unwarranted” where child has formed “strong, nurturing bonds” with preadoptive family, and “there is little or no evidence of significant, existing bond with the biological parent”).

Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision to order that any posttermination and postadoption visitation between the child and the mother take place at the sole discretion of the child's legal custodian.

Decree affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The child's father died prior to trial.