Here we are required to determine the proper standard of review for appellate courts in child custody cases. A judge in the Juvenile Court found two minor children, Eleanor and Carol, in need of care and protection and placed
*796
them in the permanent custody of the Department of Social Services (department). See G. L. c. 119, §§ 24 and 26 (1990 ed.). The Appeals Court reversed the judgment.
Custody of Eleanor,
We summarize the relevant facts as found by the judge. On April 7, 1988, seven year old Eleanor was еxamined at the South Boston Health Center for a vaginal infection. During the examination, Eleanor’s mother informed the attending physician that Eleanor had told her that the mother’s boy friend, whom we shall call John Flanders, had “touched her down there.” When questioned, Eleanor confirmed that Flanders had touched her vaginal area. Four days later, a report in accordance with G. L. c. 119, § 51A (1990 ed.) (51A report), was filed with the department alleging sexual abuse of Eleanor. Due to the nature of the allegations, Eleanor’s three year old sister, Carol, was added to the investigation.
On April 18, 1988, the mother informed a Boston police sergeant that she did not want the district attorney’s office to prosecute Flanders. 2 On April 20, 1988, the allegations of sexual abuse were supported along with allegations of emotional neglect of both children by their mother. Eleanor later recanted her allegation. 3
On August 19, 1988, a second 51A report was filed alleging that the mother continued emotionally to neglect Eleanor and Carol by allowing them to remain alone and unsupervised with Flanders. Following these allegations, the mother and Eleanor participated in therapy at the South Boston Health Center and the mother was generally coopеrative with the department. Her cooperation and participation in therapy ceased, however, on the release of Flanders from *797 Bridgewater State Hospital. 4 Within the next year, several 51A reports alleging emotional neglect of both children were filed with the department, but went unsupported.
On December 9, 1989, the mother and Flanders were married. The department then initiated another 51A report alleging that: Flanders now had access to Eleanor and Carol; the mother and Eleanor had stopped therapy; the mother refused to acknowledge that Eleanor had been sexually abused; and the mother had failed to complete tasks outlined in a service plan that she had signed on October 25, 1989.
On January 22, 1990, the department filed the instant care and protection petition on behalf of Eleanor and Carol pursuant to G. L. c. 119, §§ 24 and 26. After a full hearing, the judge granted temporary custody of Eleanor and Carol to the department, ordered that they be placed in foster care, required that their visits with their mother be supervised, and ordered Flanders to have no contact with either child. The department placed both children in separate South Boston foster homes. In February, 1990, however, Eleanor was removed from her foster home at the request of her foster mother. Because the department was unable to find alternative foster placement in South Boston, the department placed Eleanor with her aunt and uncle in New Hampshire.
The judge found that Flanders had a history of mental illness and instability that required repeаted psychiatric admissions. 5 In addition, a sexual offender evaluation of Flanders conducted by Dr. David Doolittle found that Flanders demonstrated characteristics in his history and psychological *798 test findings associated with child sexual offenders. 6 Dr. Doolittle concluded, “The circumstances to [Flanders’] emotional adjustment as well as the characteristics outlined above suggest the need for considerable caution regarding his having unsupervised access to children at the present time.” He recommended that Flanders not be granted unsupervised access to children residing in his home.
As of January, 1990, the mother had called a department social worker fоur times and indicated that she would obtain a divorce from Flanders. However, at the care and protection proceeding on July 23, 1990, she had not obtained one and she continued to live with Flanders. She also testified at the proceeding that nothing would ever convince her that Eleanor was sexually аbused, and that Flanders is not a danger to her children.
The judge concluded that both Eleanor and Carol were in need of care and protection pursuant to G. L. c 119, §§ 24 and 26, and permanently committed them to the care of the department for placement in foster care. The Appeals Court reversed, stating that “the evidence presented a slender, and therefore insufficient, basis for a finding of the mother’s unfitness.” 7 Custody of Eleanor, supra at 670. We reach the *799 same result as the Appeals Court, but by slightly different reasoning.
The judge’s findings in a custody proceeding must be specific and detailed so as to demonstrate that close attention has been given the evidence and such findings must prove current parental unfitness clearly and convincingly.
Care & Protection of Laura, ante
788, 790 (1993).
Care & Protection of Martha,
None of the judge’s findings in this case was clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence to support it, or when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Building Inspector of Lancaster
v.
Sanderson,
It does not follow, however, that the findings, taken together, proved parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. See
Care & Protection of Laura, supra
at 793. “Clear and convincing proof involves a degree of belief greater than the usually impоsed burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt imposed in criminal cases.”
Stone
v.
Essex County Newspapers, Inc.,
Counsel for the children argues that a “de nova” review is required on appeal because the judge’s decision implicаtes constitutional rights. However, it is settled that, while the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is constitutionally protected, see
Department of Pub. Welfare
v.
J.K.B.,
*802
Appellate review in custody appeals is not done to assess the evidence de nova, but rather to determine whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous and whether they proved parental unfitnеss by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g.,
Care & Protection of Martha,
We were informеd at oral argument that the mother has filed a complaint for divorce against Flanders. 13 This information, together with the considerations cited by the Appeals *803 Court and any other relevant changed circumstances, should be evaluated in determining any appropriate future care and proteсtion for these children. See note 7, supra. G. L. c. 119, § 26. 14 Custody of Two Minors, supra at 621. The judgment of the Juvenile Court granting the department permanent custody of Eleanor and Carol is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Notes
One of the judge’s findings indicates that the mother so informed the sergeant on March' 18, 1988. Another finding indicates the date to be April 18, 1988. See note 8, infra. The sergeant testified that the event occurred on April 18, 1988.
The judge found that Eleanor’s recantation lacked credibility. See note 8, infra.
Flanders was held at Bridgewater State Hospital for reasons unknown to the judge.
Analyzing Flanders’ psychiatric history, thе judge found that Flanders had been sent to Metropolitan State Hospital at age ten for thirty days of observation for his involvement in setting a fire; was hospitalized at age twenty-four for three days in 1978 after he filed for divorce from his first wife, and was readmitted nine months later; was hospitalized fifty-three times at Shattuck Hosрital since 1981 on short-term admissions; had been an outpatient at the D Street Clinic since 1982; had been taking psychoactive medication for five years; had lit himself on fire in 1981; had admitted to overdosing to gain admission to a hospital.
The judge recited Dr. Doolittle’s findings that Flanders showed a denial of normal sexual aсtivity and sexual interests in combination with indications of sexual preoccupation; there were indications of child-oriented imagery as well as hostility toward females; there was a combination of interest and hostility toward children; Flanders had a very poor relationship with his father, and was sexually abused as a child; Flanders had a history of being accused as being a sexual offender by more than one victim (charged with indecent assault and battery on a child in 1988); Flanders had a history of sexual deviance in his extended family and showed signs of social isolation in development.
The Appeals Court, however, orderеd that the children remain in the custody of the department pending further proceedings of the Juvenile Court regarding (1) the status of the mother’s divorce from Flanders; (2) the mother’s current ability adequately to care for the children; (3) the reintegration of the children into the mother’s home to ensure that it takes plaсe at a reasonable pace considering their emotional ties and their current situation in school; and (4) an order for appropriate therapy and other services. See Custody of Eleanor, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 671-672 (1992).
The judge found: “[A] recantation of sexual abuse is common in children where a primary care-taker denounces the allegation. Mother has repeatedly denounced [Eleanor’s] allegation since April 18, 1988 when mother informed [a sergeant] of the Boston Police that she did not want to prosecute [Flanders], Mother has repeatedly accused [Eleanor] of lying. Based on the above, this court finds that [Eleanor’s] recantation lacks credibility.”
Four witnesses testified at the care and protection proceeding on July 23, 1990: the Boston police sergeant who investigated the allegation that Flanders sexually abused Eleanor, the department case worker, the court investigator, and the mother.
See also
Stanley
v.
Illinois,
See
Murphy
v.
I.S.K.Con. of New England, Inc.,
See also
Commonwealth
v.
Tucceri,
This court has reversed a lower court’s custody decisions where the findings were clearly erroneous, or where the properly supported findings were insufficient to prove current parental unfitness by the proper legal standard. See, e.g.,
Custody of a Minor (No. 2),
Similar information was presented to the Juvenile Court judge and to the Appeals Court. The judge concluded, “Though on numerous occasions, [the mother] has claimed that she will divorce [Flanders], she has failed to do so, and has recently indicated that she will not.”
The Appeals Court stated, “Although we conclude that the award of permanent custody should be set aside, that conclusion is of little practical significance in light of the information we received at oral argument concerning subsequent events. We were informed that the mother has permanently separated from Flanders and is awaiting an imminent court hearing on her complaint for divorce. As Flanders’ presence in the home was the basis for the award of permanent custody to [the department], the need for such an order may no longer exist.”
Custody of Eleanor,
General Laws c. 119, § 26 (1990 ed.), states in part: “On any petition filed in any court pursuant to this section, the department, parents, persons having legal custody of, counsel for a child, the probation officer, guardian or guardian ad litem may petition the court not more than once every six months for a review and redetermination of the current needs of such child whose case has come before the court.”