Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, to determine whether a mother's preexisting consent to adoption was valid when the child was later named in a pending care and protection proceeding. The court also held that the Juvenile Court could consider the mother's motion to approve an open adoption agreement. The court vacated the relevant orders and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, to determine the validity of the mother's consent to adoption when the consent was executed before the child became the subject of a pending care and protection proceeding.
- Whether the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the mother's motion to approve an open adoption agreement in connection with the pending care and protection proceeding.
- Whether the mother's lack of standing as to the adoption precluded the Juvenile Court from exercising jurisdiction over the open adoption agreement.
Holdings
- The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, to consider the validity of a parent's consent to adoption when the child is the subject of a pending care and protection proceeding and the issue is raised during and is relevant to that active proceeding, even if the consent was executed before the proceeding began or before the child was added to the petition.
- The motion judge erred by declining to exercise jurisdiction over the mother's motion to revoke consent solely on jurisdictional grounds; on the record presented, the only reasonable course was to adjudicate the motion.
- The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction, in connection with a pending care and protection petition, to hear and decide a birth parent's motion for approval of an open adoption agreement when the Juvenile Court will issue the adoption decree.
Key quotations
“The sentence of G. L. c. 210, § 1, quoted above gave the Juvenile Court jurisdiction to inquire whether the mother's consent to Zula's adoption under G. L. c. 210, § 2, was valid.” (10)
“All this leads us to conclude that the timing of a parent's execution of the consent form -- whether before or after the initiation of care and protection proceedings -- has no bearing on the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction to consider the validity of the consent, so long as the issue is raised during and relevant to an active proceeding.” (12)
“The motion judge also erred in concluding that the mother's lack of standing with respect to Zula's adoption meant the Juvenile Court had no jurisdiction to act on the mother's motion to approve the open adoption agreement she had reached with the new preadoptive parents.” (14)
Factual background
The mother signed a statutory consent to Zula's adoption shortly after Zula's birth, placing Zula with a private adoption agency. After genetic testing identified a possible biological father and the agency could not provide long-term foster care during custody litigation, Zula was transferred to the Department of Children and Families and added to a pending care and protection petition involving her siblings. The mother later testified that she felt rushed when signing the documents and did not understand that she had consented to adoption by a family other than the initially selected family. She subsequently entered an open adoption agreement with a new preadoptive family.
Procedural history
The mother consented to Zula's adoption before Zula was added to a pending Juvenile Court care and protection petition involving Zula's older siblings. After Zula was transferred to the Department of Children and Families and added to the petition, the mother moved to revoke her consent. The Juvenile Court denied that motion for lack of jurisdiction and later denied the mother's motion to approve an open adoption agreement on standing and jurisdictional grounds. The Appeals Court consolidated the mother's appeals and vacated both orders.
Remand instructions
The August 2, 2024, order is vacated and the matter is remanded for adjudication of the mother's motion to revoke consent, if she chooses to pursue it. The May 19, 2025, order is vacated and the matter is remanded for adjudication of the mother's motion for approval of the open adoption agreement if it is renewed.