Opinion
21-P-1081
11-28-2022
ADOPTION OF IBRAHIM (and three companion cases[1]).
Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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 23.0 or 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The mother appeals from decrees of the Juvenile Court finding her unfit and terminating her parental rights to her four children, Ibrahim, Ellen, Fiona, and Gail. We affirm.
The mother's brief was filed pursuant to Care & Protection of Valerie, 403 Mass. 317, 318 (1988), and Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 207-209 (1981) . Counsel prefaced her brief with the statement, "I find it necessary to disassociate myself from this brief."
Background.
In November 2015, the Department of Children and Families (DCF or the department) filed a care and protection petition pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 24, and was granted temporary custody of Ibrahim, Ellen, and Fiona. On May 8, 2017, the trial judge adjudicated Ibrahim, Ellen, and Fiona in need of care and protection. On April 3, 2018, shortly after Gail's birth, the department filed a care and protection petition for her and obtained temporary custody. A five-day trial occurred on nonconsecutive days, beginning on October 17, 2019, and concluding on December 19, 2019. The mother did not attend the trial. On March 26, 2020, the judge issued decrees terminating the mother's parental rights as to all four children.
Ibrahim's father, and Ellen and Fiona's putative father, did not participate in the proceedings, and their parental rights were terminated. Gail's father participated in the proceedings, and his parental rights were terminated as well. He filed a notice of appeal, but it was never perfected. He neither paid the docket fee withing the ten-day period of the notice as required by Mass. R. A. P. 10 (a) (1), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1618 (2019), nor did he file a motion to waive costs or fees, or request an extension from the trial court. As a result, none of the fathers are parties to this appeal.
Discussion.
The mother argues that the record does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit and would not be able to become fit to care for the children. We disagree.
"In deciding whether to terminate a parent's rights, a judge must determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and, if the parent is unfit, whether the child's best interests will be served by terminating the legal relation between parent and child." Adoption of Talik, 92 Mass.App.Ct. 367, 370 (2017), quoting Adoption of Ilian, 91 Mass.App.Ct. 727, 729 (2017). A judge's decision to terminate parental rights is given substantial deference and we "reverse only where the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or where there is a clear error of law or abuse of discretion." Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011).
Here, the record is replete with clear and convincing evidence that the mother is "unfit to further the welfare and the best interests of the [children]." Care & Protection of Stephen, 401 Mass. 144, 150 (1987). The judge's findings were "specific and detailed, demonstrating, as we require, that close attention was given to the evidence." Adoption of Don, 435 Mass. 158, 165 (2001). The record supports the trial judge's findings and conclusions, as the mother has a long history of untreated mental health issues that affect her ability to parent, to maintain stable housing, and to keep a clean home. The mother inconsistently attended parent-child visits and would not attend for long periods of time. In addition, three of her four partners physically abused the mother, and at least Ibrahim, Ellen, and Fiona were exposed to incidents of domestic violence that the trial judge concluded impacted their well-being negatively. Further, the mother continued to maintain a relationship with Gail's father, a level three sex offender, and because the mother was bedridden and had not sought medical treatment, she was reliant on him for her own care. Also, she had not addressed her history of and continued substance use. Further, she was unable to engage consistently in service and action plan tasks and had shown a lack of stability and consistency in her home life. The judge did not err in concluding that the mother was currently unfit to care for the children, that this unfitness was not temporary, and that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
Decrees affirmed.
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.