CARE AND PROTECTION OF QUEEN v. << (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On July 1, 2025, following a trial, a judge of the Juvenile Court found the mother unfit and adjudicated Queen to be a child in need of care and protection. On appeal, the mother claims that the factual findings do not support the judge's determination of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, she argues that the judge failed to draw a nexus between symptoms of the mother's mental health conditions and abuse or neglect of Queen; that Queen's improved academic performance after she was removed from the mother's care was insufficient evidence of unfitness since Queen was over sixteen years old, and thus not legally required to attend school; and that the mother's absence from trial should not have been factored into the finding of unfitness. We affirm.

We review to assess whether the judge's factual findings proved unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 802 (1993). “Parental unfitness must be determined by taking into consideration a parent's character, temperament, conduct, and capacity to provide for the child in the same context with the child's particular needs, affections, and age.” Adoption of Talik, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 370 (2017), quoting Adoption of Mary, 414 Mass. 705, 711 (1993). “[T]he judge's assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to deference.” Custody of Eleanor, supra at 799.

A parent's mental health “is relevant only to the extent that it affects the parents’ capacity to assume parental responsibility.” Adoption of Luc, 484 Mass. 139, 146 (2020), quoting Adoption of Frederick, 405 Mass. 1, 9 (1989). Here, as the judge properly found, the mother's untreated mental health affected her ability to provide a stable and safe environment for Queen. During her outbursts, the mother would regularly yell and throw dishes and glasses in the home, leaving broken glass on the ground. These outbursts would also make it difficult for Queen and her brother to sleep, resulting in Queen seeking refuge to sleep in the nurse's office at school. During supervised visits, the mother would yell and scream, causing Queen to be embarrassed, cry, and cancel future visits.

A child not legally required to attend school cannot be removed from their parent's custody solely for not attending school. Care & Protection of Emily, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 190, 193 (2003). However, here, Queen was removed from the mother's custody because of the impact that symptoms of the mother's mental illness, like outbursts, were having on Queen. Queen's improved academic performance after removal was not used as the sole reason for finding unfitness. Instead, it was properly considered as evidence of the negative impact that the mother's behavior was having on Queen's day-to-day life, including but not limited to, her schooling.

Finally, “a trial judge has discretion to determine whether to draw an adverse inference from a parent's absence” in a custody case, because their absence may suggest that the parent “cannot meet the child's best interests.” Adoption of Talik, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 372. As this is a discretionary decision, we review to determine if that discretion was abused. Id. Here, the judge properly drew an adverse inference because the mother had notice of the trial and refused the transportation assistance offered by the Department of Children and Families. Finally, the adverse inference was not the sole reason for finding the mother unfit -- her failure to attend trial was incorporated in only one of the judge's thirty-two conclusions of law. There was no abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed.