Custody of Victoria
473 Mass. 64
Mass.2015Background
- Victoria, a Mexican-born minor and victim of trafficking, was placed in federal custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) after law enforcement referral and transferred from Texas to Massachusetts in Feb. 2014 for placement with Lutheran Social Services and residential treatment.
- The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a custody petition in Probate & Family Court ~3 weeks after Victoria’s arrival; a judge initially granted temporary emergency custody but later dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and then reinstated it while reporting jurisdictional questions.
- The core factual issue: Victoria had resided in Texas in an ORR placement for more than six months before transfer to Massachusetts; ORR (a federal agency) had legal custody while assigning her to a Massachusetts placement agency.
- Legal question presented: whether Massachusetts courts have child custody jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (G. L. c. 209B) to decide custody of an unaccompanied refugee minor assigned to a Massachusetts agency by ORR.
- The Probate judge concluded Massachusetts lacked “home state” jurisdiction but treated Massachusetts as an appropriate forum under federal resettlement regulations; the Supreme Judicial Court instead resolved statutory interpretation under G. L. c. 209B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCF) | Defendant's Argument (Mother / ORR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts has "home state" jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B § 2(a)(1) for a child placed in ORR custody in another State for >6 months | ORR is not an "authorized social service agency" under the statute; therefore no other State qualifies as home state | Texas (where the child resided >6 months under ORR custody) is the home state and Massachusetts lacks §2(a)(1) jurisdiction | Held: No home‑state jurisdiction — the ORR (federal) is not an "authorized social service agency" for §1 definition, so Texas is not treated as home state for statute purposes |
| Whether Massachusetts can assert jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B § 2(a)(2) (no other State would have jurisdiction and it is in the child's best interest) | Massachusetts is appropriate because (a) no other State qualifies as home state under the statute and (b) Victoria and at least one contestant (Lutheran Social Services) have significant connections and substantial evidence exists in Massachusetts | Mother/ORR argued statutory text and federal placement scheme preclude Massachusetts jurisdiction because child resided in Texas and ORR placement effectively supplied custody nexus | Held: Yes — §2(a)(2) applies: no other State is the child’s home state under the statute and Massachusetts is in the child’s best interest given the Massachusetts placement, services, and available evidence |
| Whether the statute’s phrase "authorized social service agency" includes federal agencies like ORR | DCF: phrase refers to State agencies only; Congress/ORR’s federal custody does not create the state nexus required by c.209B | Opposing view: ORR’s custody functions like a social service agency and should qualify | Held: The court interpreted "authorized social service agency" to mean State (not Federal) agencies, so ORR custody does not create home‑state nexus |
| Need to resolve conflict with federal regulation requiring States to establish legal responsibility for ORR minors | DCF: federal regulation (45 C.F.R. §400.115) does not override state statute and Massachusetts can assume jurisdiction under c.209B(2) | Opponents: federal placement/regulation shows federal primacy or requires different outcome | Held: Court did not find federal regulation controlling the statutory interpretation; it answered only that Massachusetts has jurisdiction under c.209B §2(a)(2) and remanded for proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Redding v. Redding, 398 Mass. 102 (Mass. 1986) (discusses purposes of state custody‑jurisdiction statute adopting the uniform act)
- Guardianship of Zeke, 422 Mass. 438 (Mass. 1996) (Massachusetts courts may exercise custody jurisdiction only under G. L. c. 209B)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1988) (federal discussion of uniform custody‑jurisdiction principles and interstate custody disputes)
- MacDougall v. Acres, 427 Mass. 363 (Mass. 1998) (directs application of Massachusetts law to determine custody jurisdiction)
- Worcester v. College Hill Props., LLC, 465 Mass. 134 (Mass. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles: read words in context to effectuate legislative purpose)