Brantley v. Hampden Division of the Probate & Family Court Department

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed Hampden Division Probate and Family Court protocols for obtaining and using confidential Department of Children and Families information in child-related proceedings. The court upheld the petitioner’s lack of standing to challenge current protocols and denial of class certification, but exercised its superintendency authority under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to review the protocols. It held that aspects of the current protocols violated due process by permitting consideration of unreliable, layered hearsay without a meaningful opportunity for litigants to review and rebut adverse information, and directed Hampden to stay the protocols.

Holdings

1. Brantley lacked standing to challenge the current protocols because her cases had ended before the complaint was filed and she did not show that she was presently or likely to be injured by them.
2. The court could and should review the current protocols under G. L. c. 211, § 3, despite Brantley's lack of standing, because the case presented an extraordinary systemic constitutional issue involving the administration of justice by a court.
3. The current Hampden protocols violated due process because they permitted judges to consider unreliable, multilayered hearsay concerning parental fitness and custody without ensuring a meaningful opportunity for the affected litigant to know and rebut the adverse information.
4. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the Department of Children and Families violated G. L. c. 119, §§ 51E or 51F, its regulations, or the Fair Information Practices Act, G. L. c. 66A.
5. The denial of class certification was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brantley had standing to challenge the current Hampden protocols.
2. Whether the Supreme Judicial Court could review the current protocols under its general superintendence power despite Brantley's lack of standing and the availability of ordinary appellate procedures.
3. Whether the current protocols violated due process by permitting judges to consider unreliable, layered hearsay concerning parental fitness and custody without providing litigants copies of the materials and a meaningful opportunity to rebut them.
4. Whether the evidence established that the Department of Children and Families violated G. L. c. 119, §§ 51E and 51F, its regulations, or the Fair Information Practices Act, G. L. c. 66A.
5. Whether class certification was warranted.

Disposition

affirmed