Care & Protection of Jamison
4 N.E.3d 889
Mass.2014Background
- Nine-year-old Jamison, in DCF custody, sought visitation with his siblings Fergus (15), Rosalie (4), and Christopher, who were wards under guardianship of their aunt Darlene and spouse Dorothy.
- Guardians voluntarily terminated guardianship of Jamison in 2007; Jamison placed in DCF permanent custody in 2008.
- In 2011 Jamison petitioned the Juvenile Court under G. L. c. 119, § 26B (b) for sibling visitation; the court found best interests favored visitation and ordered supervised visits.
- Guardians and wards appealed; matter was transferred to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
- The court held the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over such petitions where the petitioner is in state care and siblings are wards under guardianship, but the Blixt presumption does not apply to guardians’ judgments.
- The court remanded for additional proceedings due to insufficient evidence on how visitation would affect Fergus and Rosalie, including need for psychological evaluations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Juvenile Court have jurisdiction here? | Jamison seeks protection of sibling access; statute intended to reunify separated siblings. | Guardians contend Probate and Family Court exclusive; third-party visitation limited to listed scenarios. | Juvenile Court has jurisdiction; petition fits state-intervention context. |
| Does the Blixt presumption apply to guardians in sibling visitation? | Guardians’ judgments deserve deference as fit parents under Blixt. | Guardians are not parents; Blixt presumption does not extend to guardians. | Blixt presumption does not apply to guardians; no automatic deference. |
| Was the best interests determination properly supported for all three children? | Visitation would be in the best interests of Jamison and siblings. | Evidence insufficient for Fergus and Rosalie; visitation could harm them; need more data. | Record insufficient to conclude best interests for Fergus and Rosalie; remand for more evidence. |
| Should psychological evaluations be ordered on Fergus and Rosalie upon remand? | Evaluations are unnecessary or unavailable. | Expert input needed to assess impact on younger siblings. | Remand with orders for appropriate psychological evaluations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649 (Mass. 2002) (establishes presumption of parental decisions' validity in grandparent visitation)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights and third-party visitation rights under due process constraints)
- Hugo, 428 Mass. 219 (Mass. 1998) (best interests standard; caution in applying visitation orders)
- Gonzalez, 462 Mass. 459 (Mass. 2012) (best interests factors for child visitation and safety)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1925) (fundamental parental rights theme in childrearing decisions)