948 N.E.2d 1239
Mass.2011Background
- Department of Children and Families filed petition under G. L. c. 119, § 24 seeking a declaration Daisy is a child in need of care and protection; judge dispensed with parental consent under § 26, terminating parental rights; only mother appealed; Appeals Court affirmed; court granted further appellate review limited to statutory interpretation of § 82; Daisy, age nine at statements, reported abuse by father and made multiple disclosures to professionals; statements admitted at trial when Daisy was eleven; § 82 requires unavailability and reliability for admissibility; issue is whether age refers to time of statements or time of trial; court interprets as age at time of statements; upholding admission of statements made before age ten
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 82’s age trigger | Mother argues age refers to trial time | Department argues age refers to statements at trial | Age refers to time of statements (under ten) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Quentin, 424 Mass. 882 (1997) (due-process protections for adduction of child’s out-of-court statements; four safeguards)
- Commissioner of Correction v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court for the County of Worcester, 446 Mass. 123 (2006) (read into statute only what Legislature included; avoid adding words)
- Water Dep't of Fairhaven v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 455 Mass. 740 (2010) (statutory interpretation governs when plain language is clear)
- Boston Hous. Auth. v. National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 3, 458 Mass. 155 (2010) (interpretation of statutes balancing interests; avoid absurd results)
- Halebian v. Berv, 457 Mass. 620 (2010) (standard for interpreting ambiguous statutory language)
- DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 454 Mass. 486 (2009) (principles of statutory interpretation in Massachusetts)