Opinion
12-P-1427
04-22-2013
ADOPTION OF ZENA (and a companion case).
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The father of two minor children appeals from decrees of the Juvenile Court terminating his parental rights. On appeal, the father does not challenge the judge's subsidiary factual findings or the ultimate finding of parental unfitness. Rather, his sole claim is that the Department of Children and Families (the department) failed to follow its statutory mandate to strengthen and encourage family life by failing to make adequate efforts to assist him, and by imposing excessive service plan requirements and unreasonable conditions on his visitation with the children. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the department's brief at pages seventeen through twenty-three and the children's brief at pages thirteen through twenty-seven.
The mother stipulated to the termination of her parental rights and is not involved in this appeal.
--------
As an initial matter, we could affirm the decrees for the reason, if no other, that the father never raised an issue in the Juvenile Court regarding the adequacy of the department's efforts. See Adoption of Gregory, 434 Mass. 117, 124-125 (2001). Even were that not so, the proper focus in termination proceedings is on the parent's current ability to assume parental responsibility and the best interests of the children, not on whether the department tried hard enough to keep a biological family intact. See Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 61 (2011); Adoption of Lenore, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 275, 278 (2002). Moreover, the tasks proposed for the father in the department's service plan are not 'excessive' and 'overwhelming' as the father maintains, but are the essentials of parenting, especially for children with the medical and other special needs of these children. The proposed tasks are but some of the many tasks the children's current preadoptive parents have performed on a regular basis since the children were placed together in their care in September, 2009. The father's view that the department's service plan is a waste of his time is but another manifestation of the father's lack of awareness of the children's needs and the essential requirements of parenting. We discern no basis for disturbing the decrees where the judge's detailed factual findings, which are not challenged on appeal, provide clear and convincing evidence that the father is currently unfit, his unfitness is likely to continue into the indefinite future, and the children's best interests would be best served by termination of the father's parental rights. See Adoption of Katharine, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 27-28 (1997). Decrees affirmed.
By the Court (Grasso, Katzmann & Grainger, JJ.),