ADOPTION OF AKARI v. << (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The mother appeals from decrees entered by a judge of the Juvenile Court that found her unfit and terminated her parental rights to her four youngest children. On appeal, the mother does not contest the trial judge's unfitness determination. She contends, however, that the judge erred in not, sua sponte, delaying adjudication to determine whether the results of a neuropsychological evaluation “could be translated into accommodations.” We affirm.

In March 2023, the Department of Children and Families (department) filed a petition in Juvenile Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 24, alleging that the mother's six children were in need of care and protection. In January 2025, the matter proceeded to trial as to the mother's four youngest children, Akari, Mohamed, Annalia, and Chelsea. Following trial, which lasted over six nonconsecutive days, the judge found that the mother was currently unfit, that her unfitness was not temporary, and that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of Akari, Mohamed, Annalia, and Chelsea. The judge further found that the department's adoption plans were in the best interests of the children. The mother appealed.

In October 2024, about three months before the start of trial, the mother completed a neuropsychological evaluation. At trial, department social workers assigned to the family's case testified that the evaluation, which itself was not part of the record, suggested that the mother had a below average intelligence quotient (IQ) and issues “with the organizational skills, and being able to comprehend certain things.” For the first time on appeal, the mother argues that the judge should have given the mother six months to engage in services to address her “intellectual deficits” before finding that her unfitness was not temporary and terminating her parental rights.

The mother's argument on appeal is akin to “[a] claim of inadequate services[, which] must be raised in a timely manner to provide the judge and the department the opportunity to make accommodations while the case is pending.” Adoption of Yalena, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 554 (2021), citing Adoption of West, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 242 (2020). At no point prior to or during trial did the mother request additional services or to delay adjudication of the children's best interests based on the results of her neuropsychological evaluation. Accordingly, the issue is waived and need not be addressed. See Adoption of Gregory, 434 Mass. 117, 120 n.1, 124 (2001); Adoption of Mattis, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 548, 549 (2026).

In addition, the judge considered the testimony about the neuropsychological evaluation, and reasonably concluded that it did not provide additional insight into whether there was “a reasonable likelihood that the [mother] will become fit.” Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011). Moreover, it is well settled that the children's best interests are paramount in these cases, and the children should not be made to wait indefinitely in the hopes that the mother might become fit. See Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 517 (2005).

Decrees affirmed.