Opinion
No. 14–P–374.
12-12-2016
ADOPTION OF DANIELLE (and a companion case).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The background of this case is described in our memorandum and order of December 8, 2015. See Adoption of Danielle, 88 Mass.App.Ct. 1116 (2015). The mother appealed from the portions of the Juvenile Court decrees (1) terminating her parental rights as to her younger daughter, Elizabeth; (2) ordering that she receive a minimum of four supervised visits per year with Elizabeth; and (3) ordering that she receive a minimum of four supervised visits per year with her older daughter, Danielle. The judge also terminated the mother's parental rights as to Danielle, but the mother did not appeal from that portion of the decision. In addition, although the mother's notice of appeal also challenged the rejection of the mother's alternative placement plan, the mother did not pursue that argument on appeal. The decrees also terminated the parental rights of the fathers of the two children. Neither father appealed. The mother also appealed from (4) an order by a single justice of this court denying her motion to continue stay of appeal and for leave to file a rule 60(b) motion. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). These appeals were consolidated by this court.
In our previous memorandum and order of December 8, 2015, we affirmed the decree as to Elizabeth in all respects. In light of changed circumstances brought to our attention, we reversed the order of the single justice with respect to Danielle and entered a stay of the remaining portions of the appeal to allow the mother to file a rule 60(b) motion with respect to the placement of Danielle, something supported at that time by Danielle. At the mother's request, we extended that stay several times. The judge has now denied the rule 60(b) motion that was filed in the trial court, and the stay has expired.
This case does not involve the order denying the rule 60(b) motion.
--------
There remains before us only one aspect of this appeal, the original order of visitation with respect to Danielle. Given the circumstances as they were at the time the judge issued her original decree as to Danielle, and the fact that the visitation order requires a minimum number of visits, but imposes no maximum on the number of permissible visits, we cannot conclude that the order of visitation with respect to Danielle was an abuse of discretion.
Consequently, the decree as to Danielle is affirmed.
So ordered.