Adoption of Saul

41 Citing cases

  1. In re M.S.

    99 Mass. App. Ct. 247 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Id. at 153 & n.5, 27 N.E.3d 1244, quoting G. L. c. 233, § 20B. It generally does not prevent a treating psychiatrist from passing along his diagnosis of a patient so long as that diagnosis does not reveal communications. See Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 552-553, 804 N.E.2d 359 (2004) (treating psychiatrist's diagnosis of patient's condition that did not reveal confidential communications was not privileged). In Adoption of Saul, we expressly rejected the patient's argument that the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder itself was privileged "because any diagnosis as to the nature of her mental illness could not have been made absent communications to her psychotherapist in the course of treatment or diagnosis."

  2. P.W. v. M.S

    67 Mass. App. Ct. 779 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    The father's references to several other privileges without identifying the records to which they might apply do not require us to discuss them. Compare Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 554 (2004). Section 20B contains an exception that is relevant here: "The privilege granted hereunder shall not apply to any of the following communications: . . .( e) In any case involving child custody . . . in which, upon a hearing in chambers, the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, determines that the psychotherapist has evidence bearing significantly on the patient's ability to provide suitable care or custody, and that it is more important to the welfare of the child that the communication be disclosed than that the relationship between patient and psychotherapist be protected."

  3. In re Fabio

    No. 23-P-327 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 8, 2024)

    "A judge may decline to order postadoption visitation, or 'may order limited postadoption contact, including visitation, between a child and a biological parent where such contact is currently in the best interests of the child.'" Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 546, 556 (2004), quoting Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 553 (2000). "An order for postadoption contact is grounded in the over-all best interests of the child, based on emotional bonding and other circumstances of the actual personal relationship of the child and the biological parent, not in the rights of the biological parent nor the legal consequences of their natural relation"

  4. In re Gladys

    No. 22-P-771 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 10, 2023)

    "A judge may decline to order postadoption visitation, or 'may order limited postadoption contact, including visitation, between a child and a biological parent where such contact is currently in the best interests of the child.'" Adoption ofSaul, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 546, 556 (2004), quoting Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 553 (2000). "An order for postadoption contact is grounded in the over-all best interests of the child, based on emotional bonding and other circumstances of the actual personal relationship of the child and the biological parent, not in the rights of the biological parent nor the legal consequences of their natural relation" (citation omitted). Adoption of Saul, supra. "Appellate review of a judge's denial of a request for postadoption visitation is under the abuse of discretion standard."

  5. In re Adoption of Zarita

    99 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021)

    Each of the judge's considerations -- the father's housing, mental illness, history of substance use, termination from a substance abuse treatment program as a result of physical violence towards others, denial of his history of substance use and mental illness, criminal history, volatile temper, and failure to complete the service plan -- was supported by the evidence, relevant, and permissible. See, e.g., Adoption of Virgil, 93 Mass. App. Ct. at 303 ; Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 553-554 (2004) ; Petition of Boston Children's Serv. Ass'n to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 566, 573 (1985). The record in this case demonstrates the father's history of problematic substance use and mental illness.

  6. In re Adoption of Hedda

    15-P-5 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 18, 2015)

    See G. L. c. 210, § 3(c)(xii). See also Adoption of Frederick, 405 Mass. 1, 9 (1989); Care & Protection of Bruce, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 763-764 (1998); Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 553-554 (2004). While a determination of unfitness does not necessarily follow from a finding of mental illness, see Care & Protection of Bruce, supra at 763-764, the evidence here supported the judge's finding of a nexus between the mother's mental illness and her parental unfitness.

  7. In re Adoption Nisha

    84 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)

    Although mental illness by itself may not be sufficient to show unfitness, it may contribute to a finding of unfitness if there is a nexus between the parent's mental illness and the inability to provide minimally acceptable care for the child. See Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 546, 553–554 (2004). The nexus between mental illness and parental unfitness must be sufficient to establish “either history of abuse or neglect or prognostications that are ... firmly based.”

  8. Carpenter v. Mass. Inst. of Tec., No

    No. 032660 (Mass. Cmmw. May. 12, 2005)

    The psychotherapist-patient and social worker-client privileges protect from compelled disclosure conversations and other communicative conduct, made to licensed psychotherapists or social workers, which relate to diagnosis or treatment of mental or emotional conditions. G.L.c. 233, § 20B; G.L.c. 112, § 135B; In Re Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 546, 549-55 (2004). The diagnosis itself, however, as well as the times, dates, and length of sessions, are not protected by the privilege.

  9. Linscott v. Burns, No

    C.A. No. 2003-00648 (Mass. Cmmw. Jan. 25, 2005)

    There are references in the record before me to certain documents filed by plaintiff's ex-husband in their divorce action that suggest that Dr. Wagner is a psychotherapist within the meaning of G.L. c. 233, § 20B and that the records in question involve communications between a patient and her psychotherapist. As the Appeals Court explained in Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 555 (2004), "It is the patient who must assert the privilege. Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 438 Mass. 325, 331-332 (2002), and cases cited.

  10. Koppel v. Moses

    20-cv-11479-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 8, 2022)

    Matter of M.S., 99 Mass.App.Ct. at 254; see In re Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 546, 551 (2004).