Opinion
11-P-869
01-18-2012
ADOPTION OF IESHA (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 children's father appeals from decrees of the Juvenile Court finding the children in need of care and protection and dispensing with his consent to adoption pursuant to G. L. c. 119, §§ 24 and 26, and G. L. c. 210, § 3. On appeal, he does not contest his present unfitness. Indeed, the extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial judge, reflecting criminality, drug problems, physical and emotional abuse of the mother, and an inability or unwillingness by the father to address these issues, support the conclusion of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The trial judge found that at least six of the factors to be considered under G. L. c. 210, § 3, were applicable to the father in this case.
The father does suggest that the trial judge failed to consider that his unfitness may be only temporary, but the judge made a specific finding that the father's 'unfitness is likely to continue into the indefinite future to a near certitude.' We discern no error in this conclusion.
--------
Rather, the father argues for the first time on appeal that a guardianship by the children's maternal grandparents, rather than adoption by the grandparents, would be in the children's best interests. Because the issue of guardianship was not presented to the trial court, the father has waived it. See Adoption of Leland, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 580, 588 (2006), and cases cited. We do not discern an error of law or abuse of discretion in the trial judge's determination that termination of the father's parental rights and adoption by the maternal grandparents is in the children's best interests. See Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59-60 (2011). See also Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 516-517 (2005).
Decrees affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Hanlon, JJ.),