Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considers whether the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over a sibling-visitation petition when the petitioning child is in the custody of the Department of Children and Families and the siblings are wards of legal guardians. The court holds that jurisdiction exists and that the constitutional presumption protecting parental visitation decisions does not apply to fit guardians in this context. It remands because the record contained insufficient evidence to determine whether visitation served the best interests of all affected children.
Holdings
- The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction under G. L. c. 119, § 26B (b), over a sibling-visitation petition when State intervention caused the siblings to be separated, even if the petitioning child is in DCF custody and the siblings are wards of legal guardians rather than children currently in foster or adoptive placements.
- The Blixt presumption that a fit parent's decision concerning visitation is valid and in the child's best interests does not apply to the decisions of legal guardians concerning sibling visitation.
- The Juvenile Court abused its discretion by ordering sibling visitation without sufficient evidence to determine whether visitation would serve the individualized best interests of Fergus and Rosalie.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Juvenile Court has subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 119, § 26B (b), over a sibling-visitation petition brought by a child in DCF custody seeking visitation with siblings who are wards of legal guardians.
- Whether the presumption of validity recognized in Blixt v. Blixt for fit parents' decisions concerning grandparent visitation applies to fit legal guardians' decisions concerning sibling visitation.
- Whether the Juvenile Court judge abused his discretion by finding that visitation was in the best interests of all three children despite insufficient evidence concerning the effect of visitation on Fergus and Rosalie.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (34)
- Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 657-658 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003)(distinguished)
- International Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Atl. & Gulf Region, AFL-CIO v. Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 392 Mass. 811, 813 (1934)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Raposo, 453 Mass. 739, 743 (2009)(followed)
- Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 397 Mass. 837, 839 (1986)(followed)
- Adams v. Boston, 461 Mass. 602, 609 (2012)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326, 328 (1983)(followed)
- Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699, 704 (2004)(followed)
- Pentucket Manor Chronic Hosp., Inc. v. Rate Setting Comm’n, 394 Mass. 233, 240 (1985)(followed)
- Halebian v. Berv, 457 Mass. 620, 628 (2010)(followed)
- Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Division of Capital Asset Mgt., 449 Mass. 444, 458-459 & n.19 (2007)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 34.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…