Adoption of Douglas, 45 N.E.3d 595

Background

DCF filed consolidated care-and-protection petitions for six children (pseudonyms) alleging parental substance use and domestic abuse; parents stipulated to current unfitness and agreed to termination of parental rights but reserved participation in placement/visitation hearings.
The Juvenile Court held a multi-day “best interests” hearing on placement, adoption plans, and parental/sibling visitation before entering termination decrees.
On October 1, 2013 the judge adjudicated the parents unfit, ordered termination of parental rights, approved adoption plans, denied posttermination/postadoption parental visitation, and ordered sibling visitation; extensive factual findings followed.
Appeals were filed by the mother, father of the two oldest children (father I), and four children challenging the visitation rulings; the Appeals Court dismissed the parents’ appeals for lack of standing but affirmed on the merits for the children; SJC granted further review.
The SJC held that where fitness, termination, placement, and visitation are adjudicated together and a parent participated prior to entry of a termination decree, the parent has standing to appeal the visitation and placement rulings.
On the merits, the SJC affirmed the judge’s exercise of discretion to deny parental visitation based on findings of lack of significant bonds, instability, boundary issues, and the children’s improved stability in their current placements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal visitation orders after parents stipulated to unfitness but termination decree entered after hearings	Mother/father I: they participated in placement/visitation hearings and reserved the right to appeal those decisions	DCF: once termination decree enters, parents lack standing to challenge visitation if they did not separately appeal termination	Held: Parents had standing because fitness/termination and visitation were resolved in the same adjudication and parents participated before decree entry
Whether SJC should consider ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim raised for first time on appeal	Mother: trial counsel failed to disclose a purportedly conditional stipulation tying termination to family placement, warranting relief	DCF: claim is forfeited and record is inadequate for first-review on appeal	Held: Declined to consider; claim not properly preserved and record insufficient
Standard and discretion for ordering posttermination/postadoption parental visitation	Children/parents: visitation would serve child interests; some argued judge required too high a proof standard	DCF: judge considered best-interests factors and exercised discretion appropriately	Held: Judge did not abuse discretion; visitation denied due to insufficient evidence of significant existing bonds and other harm/ boundary risks
Whether visitation orders for specific parents were supported by findings of bond and best interests	Douglas and mother: acknowledged some bond; other children argued judge applied wrong standard	Parents/children: visitation sought based on relationships	Held: Except for limited bond evidence between Douglas and mother, findings showed boundary problems and lack of significant bonds; denial of visitation affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Adoption of Rico, 453 Mass. 749 (2009) (visitation orders resolved as part of termination adjudication can be appealed by participating parents)
Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550 (2000) (posttermination/postadoption visitation grounded in child’s best interests and existing emotional bonds)
Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53 (2011) (no visitation warranted absent significant existing bond)
Adoption of Dora, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 472 (2001) (deferring entry of termination decree pending best-interests hearings preserves parental participation)
Adoption of Malik, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 436 (2013) (parents lack standing after decree entry unless they participated before decree)
Petition of Catholic Charitable Bur. of the Archdiocese of Boston, Inc., 392 Mass. 738 (1984) (termination of parental rights removes custody and ordinary visitation rights)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination effects on parental rights and standards for termination)