Opinion
No. 12–P–868.
2013-08-2
ADOPTION OF FITZPATRICK.
By the Court (VUONO, RUBIN & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The mother of Fitzpatrick appeals from a decree of a judge of the Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights and her right to consent to adoption. She argues that the judge relied upon stale evidence in determining that she was unfit and ignored evidence of her rehabilitation. The mother also argues that, as the Department of Children and Families' (department) plan was to appoint Fitzpatrick's older sister as his guardian, it was not in Fitzpatrick's best interest to terminate her parental rights. We affirm.
The parental rights of the father were also terminated, but he has never made an appearance in this case.
Background. We summarize the relevant facts and procedural history from the judge's comprehensive findings, which are amply supported by the record. Fitzpatrick was born in February, 2002. He is the mother's fourth and youngest child. The mother, who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, lost custody of her three older children. As a result of the department's involvement with the mother's other children, the mother was receiving services from the department at the time of Fitzpatrick's birth. With the assistance of her assigned social worker, the mother maintained a stable environment for herself and Fitzpatrick for about three years. During this time the mother received therapy and took medication for her bipolar disorder. However, in 2005, when Fitzpatrick was three years old, the mother's condition began to deteriorate. By 2009, the mother's condition had worsened to the point that she was unable to care for Fitzpatrick, who has a history of behavioral problems including excessive aggressiveness. Fitzpatrick also has been diagnosed with obesity and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. By mid–2009, both the mother and Fitzpatrick were missing their therapy appointments and, eventually, the organization that was providing the mother and Fitzpatrick with counseling and mental health services terminated both of them for noncompliance. In October of 2009, the mother was hospitalized following a manic episode. Just before 11:00 P.M. on October 2, 2009, the mother and seven year old Fitzpatrick walked into a Boston police station. Fitzpatrick was dirty, disheveled, tired, and had only had a bag of potato chips to eat that day. The department took custody of Fitzpatrick as the mother was hospitalized. A care and protection petition was issued on October 5, 2009. Fitzpatrick was placed in foster care where, initially, he wet and soiled himself at night and had night terrors. He frequently ran away from his foster home and in February, 2010, he was hospitalized after he tried to cut himself with a broken CD. While Fitzpatrick was in foster care, the mother continued to experience mental health issues which impacted her interaction with Fitzpatrick. Additionally, the mother refused to sign service plans and refused to complete a neuropsychological exam as requested by the department. The mother continued to be inconsistent with her medications and was hospitalized again in February, 2011. Upon her discharge, the mother began receiving support and services from the Beverly PACT team. PACT is a long-term program that assists adults with significant mental illness to avoid long term hospitalization. At the time of the trial, the mother was responding well to treatment provided by PACT.
Discussion. A decision to terminate parental rights calls for a two-step analysis. See G.L.c. 210, § 3; Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005). First, the judge must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is unfit. Adoption of Nancy, supra at 514–515. Second, a judge must determine whether the termination of parental rights serves the best interests of the child. Ibid. The judge's findings will remain undisturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Ibid.
In this case, the mother does not challenge any of the judge's findings. She claims, however, that the judge erred in concluding that her unfitness would continue into the future where there was evidence of recent improvements in her mental health. According to the mother, she was no longer unfit at the time of trial and, in light of her progress, would continue to be a fit parent in the future.
While the mother is to be commended for her resilience, which the judge acknowledged, the judge's determination that the mother's mental illness placed Fitzpatrick's welfare at significant risk and that such conduct would likely continue was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The judge properly weighed more heavily the evidence of the mother's years-long struggle with mental illness—often resulting in hospitalizations and her consequent neglect of Fitzpatrick—over evidence of a short term (no more than six months) improvement in her medical management that required PACT caretakers to support the mother on a daily basis. See Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass.App.Ct. 601, 608 (2012) (“Weighing strengths against weakness is within the core competency of the trial judge, who has the benefit not only of the evidence, but of seeing and assessing the parents themselves”).
Furthermore, as the judge observed, the mother has little understanding of why her three older children had been removed from her custody and failed to fully comprehend how her limitations and mental health issues undermine her ability to parent. The mother's shortcomings in this regard are particularly significant here because Fitzpatrick has particular needs which require parenting skills beyond the mother's capacity. As we have previously stated, “[t]he specialized needs of a particular child when combined with the deficiencies of a parent's character, temperament, capacity, or conduct may clearly establish parental unfitness.” Care & Protection of Amalie, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 813, 818 (2007), quoting from Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 120, 125 (1984). Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper in this case.
The mother next argues that her rights should not have been terminated, even if she was unfit, because she and Fitzpatrick have an ongoing positive relationship and the goal for Fitzpatrick was not adoption but a permanent guardianship with the mother's oldest child, a daughter who was born in 1984. As the department notes, however, the fact that adoption is not the goal does not alone invalidate a decision to terminate parental rights. Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass.App.Ct. at 609–610. In considering Fitzpatrick's need for permanence and stability, and given the judge's determination that his best interests would be satisfied by placing him in his sister's permanent guardianship, it was soundly in the judge's discretion and authority to terminate the mother's rights. See Adoption of Gillian, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 398, 406 (2005) (termination of parental rights served best interests of child placed in permanent guardianship).
In concluding, we observe that despite the moral overtones of the statutory term “unfit,” the judge's decision was not a moral judgment. A judge may find that a mother has made renewed efforts to provide for her child to the best of her ability, but nonetheless reach the conclusion that the best interests of the child warrant the termination of parental rights.
Decree affirmed.