Adoption of Doretta

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court considers appeals by parents and one child from decrees terminating the parents' parental rights after a care and protection trial. The principal issues concern the father's requests for self-representation, the mother's requests for substitute counsel or self-representation, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings of parental unfitness. The court affirms the decrees and concludes that the father's requests to represent himself were not properly exercised, while the mother's lack of competence to waive counsel supported denial of her requests.

Holdings

1. The court did not decide whether a parent has a constitutional right to self-representation in a care and protection proceeding because, assuming such a right exists, the father's request was properly denied.
2. The father's pretrial request to represent himself was not unequivocal, and his requests made after trial began could be denied in the trial judge's discretion.
3. The father had no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal under the Federal Constitution, and the Appeals Court properly exercised its discretion to deny his eleventh-hour request.
4. The Juvenile Court did not violate the mother's due process rights by denying her requests for substitute counsel or self-representation, and no error appeared in the two status hearings held while she was temporarily without counsel.
5. The evidence supported the findings that both parents were unfit and that termination of their parental rights was in the children's best interests.
6. The denial of the father's requests for case records and trial transcripts did not violate due process or prevent meaningful participation at trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the father had a constitutional or statutory right to represent himself in the care and protection and parental-rights termination proceedings and, if so, whether the Juvenile Court properly denied his requests.
2. Whether the father had a right to represent himself on appeal.
3. Whether the mother's due process rights were violated by periods without appointed counsel or by the denial of her requests for substitute counsel or self-representation.
4. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that the parents were unfit and that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests.
5. Whether denial of the father's requests for case records and trial transcripts violated his due process rights.

Disposition

affirmed