In re Adoption Rowena
2017 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 819
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Mother has mild–moderate intellectual disability, is illiterate, and suffers from depression, anxiety and PTSD; each of the three older children (Rowena, Adam, Michael) has significant behavioral or developmental needs.
- DCF received multiple supported §51A reports (2009–2011) for neglect/lack of supervision, including incidents of inter-sibling violence, medication misuse, abandonment, dog bites, parental fighting, and parental dishonesty.
- In October 2011 Rowena stabbed Michael; DCF obtained temporary custody and the children entered foster care with severe behavioral issues and received interventions.
- DCF provided an intensive, accommodated service plan: verbal review of tasks, twice-weekly parent aide for nine months with visual aids and color-coded calendars, consistent visit scheduling and reminders, and other supports; mother showed limited durable improvement.
- Parents stipulated to unfitness in March 2013 and DCF obtained permanent custody; in June 2014 DCF moved to dispense with parental consent to adoption. After a multi-day trial (2015) the juvenile judge found both parents unfit, likely to remain so, and terminated parental rights; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to accommodate mother’s cognitive/mental-health needs | DCF failed to provide sufficient services tailored to her limitations | DCF provided substantial accommodations (verbal plans, extended parent aide, visual tools, consistent scheduling) | Court held DCF made reasonable efforts; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the judge failed to consider mother’s cooperation/compliance | Judge ignored mother’s participation (visits, classes, aide) and improvements | Judge considered cooperation but found it insufficient, sporadic, and not durable | Court upheld that the judge properly weighed cooperation and found unfitness likely to continue |
| Whether the judge failed to consider Michael’s best interests individually | Mother argued Michael has no special needs and was not considered separately | DCF showed Michael has anxiety, impulse-control issues and ongoing therapy; mother's capacity to parent multiple high-need children was doubtful | Court found judge did consider Michael individually and termination served his best interests |
| Standard/burden for termination (fitness and best interests) | Mother challenges application of standards | DCF relies on clear-and-convincing proof of unfitness and best-interest findings; judge applied legal standards | Court applied deferential review and affirmed: findings supported termination under governing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 601 (2012) (standard: clear and convincing evidence for termination and best-interest review)
- Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53 (2011) (DCF must provide services accommodating parental limitations; trial judge's discretion in weighing reasonable efforts)
- Adoption of Lenore, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 275 (2002) (extraordinary measures are not required of DCF)
- Adoption of Inez, 428 Mass. 717 (1999) (temporary-unfitness conclusions must be supported by more than faint hope)
- Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795 (1993) (standard for clear-error review)
- Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157 (1977) (definition of clear error)
- Adoption of Abigail, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 191 (1986) (parent's capacity to care for multiple high-need children relevant to best interests)
- Petitions of Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (1985) (requirement to consider each child's best interests individually)