PARENTAL RIGHTS

“Adoption of Zebediah”: A Rule 1:28 decision regarding termination of parental rights and post-adoption visitation.

A previously incarcerated father recently fought to reestablish his parental rights with his son or receive an order for post-adoption visitation, but the matter was ultimately affirmed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the father received neither. Courts are permitted to terminate parental rights only if they find by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, and doing so would be in the best interests of the child. Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005).

On appeal, the father’s first argument was that the Department of Children and Families failed to make reasonable efforts to provide him with adequate services and visitation. Even when a parent is incarcerated, DCF is required to make all reasonable efforts to promote a healthy relationship between the parent and the child. However, DCF’s duty is reliant on the parent completing their parental responsibilities or service plans, and the father failed to complete his service plans during the litigation.

Due to a no-contact order, DCF declined to arrange visitation for more than two years while the father remained incarcerated. The father claims that a no-contact order would only have been applicable if he “were out in the community,” however, there is no law to support the notion that incarceration removes the need for protective orders. Further, the father did not seek visitation while incarcerated. Unfortunately, the father failed to question the sufficiency of DCF’s services before the appeal and challenging inadequate services cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Adoption of West, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 242 (2020).

The father’s second argument was that the trial judge used outdated information when determining he was unfit to parent and that his unfitness is likely to continue. A judge can consider prior conduct in predicting a parent’s future ability to be fit for parenthood unless the information is “stale” or no longer an accurate depiction of the parent’s fitness. Adoption of Rhona, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 485 (2003). Patterns of the father’s neglect, threatening behavior, and domestic violence against the child’s mother led the Court to uphold the Juvenile Court’s judgment that the father’s unfitness is likely to continue. In the best interests of the child, the termination of the father’s parental rights will continue.

The father’s final efforts to reverse the trial court’s decision that denied him post-adoption visitation with the child also failed. While post-adoption visitation is often left up to the judgment of DCF or the adoptive parents, a judge may also order post-adoption visitation if there is evidence of a significant bond between the child and a parent. Here, little evidence suggests that there was a significant bond between the father and the child. The lack of evidence and the judge’s decision to not order post-adoption visitation does not mean the father does not love or care about his child. The Court ultimately found no abuse of discretion in denying post-adoption visitation.

Litigating issues involving parental rights can be a long, emotional battle. Despite the bond a parent has with their child, courts must seek to ensure that the path taken is in the best interests of the child. While the Court upheld the termination of the father’s parental rights in this instance, each family’s situation is very fact specific. If you have any questions about the particular nuances of your DCF matter, please reach out to us.