Opinion
No. 12–P–1264.
2013-01-28
ADOPTION OF LAILA (and a companion case).
By the Court (TRAINOR, BROWN & MILKEY, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This case involves the welfare of a twelve year old girl (to whom we shall refer as Laila) and a seven year old boy (to whom we shall refer as David). A Juvenile Court judge issued decrees that, inter alia, found the two children in need of care and protection, found their mother unfit, and terminated her parental rights. On the mother's appeal, we affirm.
The children have different fathers. The judge terminated the rights of the father of David, and the father has not appealed. The father of Laila was not a party to the proceedings.
The trial judge characterized this case as “one of the worst cases of child abuse that I have heard in my 15 1/2 years on the bench.” She supported her decrees with 367 detailed findings of fact that, together with her conclusions of law, totalled seventy-two pages. Those comprehensive findings of fact well document the severe abuse and neglect that both children suffered under the mother's care. Given that the mother has not argued, much less demonstrated, that any of the judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, little would be served by repeating the findings here. On appeal, the mother focuses on trial exhibit 25, a series of twenty-two photographs that document the bruises, scars, and burns on Laila's body. The mother argues that the photographs were admitted without proper authentication and that their erroneous admission was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal. We disagree on both counts.
While Laila bore the brunt of the physical abuse, David himself was beaten and had to observe his sister being abused.
The authenticity of photographs “can be established circumstantially by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 641, 646 (2002) (citation omitted). Even if the authentication provided by the witness through which the photographs were admitted were considered thin, the testimony of other witnesses established that the photographs accurately depicted the state of Laila's body during the relevant time period. In particular, Dr. Alice Whittier Newton testified in detail about the specific nature of Laila's injuries based on her own examination of Laila, and she confirmed that the photographs were a fair and accurate depiction of those injuries. No more was required. In any event, the photographic evidence was cumulative of Dr. Newton's testimony about the injuries. In sum, we discern neither error nor prejudice.
This is not a case where the precise date and time were material.
Indeed, the mother effectively acknowledged that the photographs accurately depicted her daughter's injuries (while disputing their cause).
Decrees affirmed.