Adoption of Yadira, 476 Mass. 491

Four Nepalese siblings arrived in Massachusetts in December 2010 as unaccompanied refugee minors placed in the Department of Children and Families (department) foster care program; two placed in Fitchburg, two in Ashby.
By April 2013 both parents had entered the United States (mother in North Dakota, father in Ohio) but had had very limited contact with the children.
In March 2014 the department filed petitions in Probate and Family Court to terminate parental rights and free three minors for adoption; the mother moved to deny the petitions.
The Probate judge denied the mother’s motion and reported the question whether 45 C.F.R. § 400.115(c) permits the department to seek termination of parental rights when parents are present in the U.S. but have not reunited with the child(ren).
The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review to decide the scope of 45 C.F.R. § 400.115(c) and whether the department may petition for termination under state law in such cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 45 C.F.R. § 400.115(c) bars the Department from petitioning to terminate parental rights for unaccompanied refugee minors when parents are present in the U.S.	The regulation’s passive phrasing means termination must already have occurred (e.g., death or missing) and courts may only recognize existing nonjudicial terminations.	The regulation permits courts to determine termination under state law; the department may file petitions in rare cases where adoption is in the child’s best interest.	The regulation allows the department to petition and for state courts to terminate parental rights under state law in appropriate cases.
Whether the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) conflicts with allowing termination petitions for unaccompanied refugee minors	ASFA’s timelines and funding focus mean it should not apply to unaccompanied refugee minors.	ASFA applies to all children under state guardianship but contains exceptions (e.g., “compelling reason”) that accommodate unaccompanied refugee minors.	No conflict: ASFA applies but permits exceptions; the statutory scheme is compatible with 45 C.F.R. § 400.115(c).

Custody of Victoria, 473 Mass. 64 (discussion of unaccompanied refugee minors program and context)
Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512 (standard for court to terminate parental rights under state law)
Harrison v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 379 Mass. 212 (agency regulation interpretation; nonexhaustive examples)
Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations)
Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572 (rejecting interpretations that produce absurd or unreasonable results)
Maher v. Retirement Bd. of Quincy, 452 Mass. 517 (procedural guidance on reported questions)
McStowe v. Bornstein, 377 Mass. 804 (procedural guidance on reported questions)
Barnes v. Metropolitan Hous. Assistance Program, 425 Mass. 79 (example of reported question practice)