Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Probate and Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act over a guardianship proceeding involving a child whose home state appeared to be New Hampshire. The court also concluded that the Massachusetts action was commenced while a New Hampshire custody proceeding was pending and that no emergency or basis for Massachusetts jurisdiction existed. It vacated the orders appointing and extending the temporary guardianship and remanded for dismissal, declining to address the guardian's request for appointed counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B, the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, to adjudicate custody of the child when the parents lived in New Hampshire, the child had lived there from birth, and a New Hampshire custody proceeding was pending when the Massachusetts petition was filed.
- Whether the Massachusetts court could exercise home-state, default, emergency, or appropriate-forum jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a).
- Whether G. L. c. 209B, § 2(d), independently barred the Massachusetts court from exercising jurisdiction while the New Hampshire court was exercising consistent custody jurisdiction.
- Whether K.L. was entitled to appointed counsel under G. L. c. 190B, § 5-212(d).
Holdings
- Massachusetts did not have home-state jurisdiction because the child lived from birth with his parents in New Hampshire, and neither the Massachusetts birth hospital nor the parents' intended future relocation to Massachusetts made Massachusetts the child's home state. K.L.'s temporary care of the child in Massachusetts also did not establish Massachusetts as his home state.
- Massachusetts did not have default jurisdiction because it appeared that New Hampshire had home-state jurisdiction; therefore, the statutory prerequisite that no other state have home-state jurisdiction was not satisfied.
- Massachusetts did not have emergency jurisdiction because the child was in the custody of a valid New Hampshire-appointed guardian, and the record supported neither abandonment nor an emergency requiring protection from abuse or neglect.
- Massachusetts did not have appropriate-forum jurisdiction because New Hampshire had not declined jurisdiction, stayed its proceedings, or deferred to Massachusetts; instead, New Hampshire exercised jurisdiction and ordered the child returned to the parents.
- Even if Massachusetts otherwise had jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), § 2(d) barred the Massachusetts court from exercising it because the Massachusetts action was commenced while New Hampshire was exercising consistent custody jurisdiction, and New Hampshire had not declined, stayed, or deferred jurisdiction.
- Because the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the child's custody, its orders in the case were void, including the orders appointing K.L. as temporary guardian and extending her authority.
- The court declined to decide whether K.L. was entitled to appointed counsel under G. L. c. 190B, § 5-212(d), because the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction and the action had to be dismissed.
Key quotations
“In sum, the facts of this case meet none of the four requirements set forth in G. L. c. 209B, § 2. Thus, we conclude that the Massachusetts court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over decisions concerning the child's custody when K.L.'s petition was filed.” (at 18)
“Given the lack of jurisdiction, all orders issued in the case by the Massachusetts court are void.” (at 18)
“The orders appointing K.L. as temporary guardian of the child and extending her authority are vacated. The matter is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for entry of a judgment dismissing this action.” (at 20)
Factual background
The child was born in Massachusetts in February 2022 while his parents lived in New Hampshire, and the parents returned with him to New Hampshire after the birth. At the parents' request, K.L., the mother's aunt, took the approximately two-and-one-half-week-old child to her Massachusetts home temporarily. K.L. obtained an emergency and then permanent guardianship order in New Hampshire before filing a guardianship petition in Massachusetts. The New Hampshire court later dismissed its guardianship action and ordered the child returned to the parents, while the Massachusetts court continued K.L.'s temporary guardianship for nearly four years.
Procedural history
K.L. obtained a guardianship order in New Hampshire in March 2022 and was appointed sole guardian in April 2022. Before the New Hampshire proceeding was dismissed, she filed a guardianship petition in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, which appointed her temporary guardian and repeatedly extended that appointment. The mother moved to vacate the Massachusetts guardianship and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the motion was denied. K.L. later sought appointed counsel; after the request was denied by the trial judge and a single justice, the single justice allowed an interlocutory appeal. The Appeals Court considered the mother's jurisdictional challenge and concluded that the Massachusetts action had to be dismissed.
Remand instructions
Vacate the orders appointing K.L. as the child's temporary guardian and extending her authority, and remand to the Probate and Family Court for entry of a judgment dismissing the action.