Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a guardian who is also a de facto parent does not have a protected liberty interest in the relationship with the ward sufficient to create a procedural due process right to appointed counsel in a removal proceeding. The court nevertheless held that the Probate and Family Court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for an indigent guardian when counsel would materially assist in determining the child's best interests and parental fitness. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an indigent guardian who has established or claims a de facto parent relationship with the ward has a procedural due process right to appointed counsel in a contested guardianship-removal proceeding.
- Whether the equitable powers of the Probate and Family Court authorize a judge to appoint counsel for an indigent guardian in a removal proceeding when counsel would materially assist in determining the child's best interests and parental fitness.
Holdings
- A guardian who is a de facto parent does not have a liberty interest in the relationship with the ward sufficient to create a procedural due process right to appointed counsel in a guardianship-removal proceeding.
- The Probate and Family Court may, in the exercise of sound discretion, appoint counsel for an indigent guardian who is the subject of a removal proceeding when counsel would materially assist the judge in determining the child's best interests and parental fitness.
Key quotations
“We conclude that guardians who have established a de facto parent relationship with their wards do not have a liberty interest in that relationship such that they have a procedural due process right to counsel.” (476 Mass. at 764)
“We hold, however, that the equitable powers of the Probate and Family Court allow a judge of that court to grant a motion requesting counsel for a guardian in a removal proceeding where the judge, in his or her sound discretion, concludes that doing so would materially assist in determining the best interests of the child.” (476 Mass. at 764)
“A Probate and Family Court judge, however, may grant a motion requesting the appointment of counsel to the guardian in a removal proceeding if the judge finds, in the exercise of his or her sound discretion, that doing so would materially assist in determining the best interests of the child.” (476 Mass. at 770)
Factual background
K.N. was born in 2005 when her mother was fifteen years old. Within weeks of the child's birth, the maternal grandmother was appointed permanent guardian and remained guardian thereafter. The mother initiated multiple proceedings seeking removal of the guardian, and in the current proceeding both mother and guardian had initially been appointed counsel, but the guardian's request for appointed counsel was later denied. The child sought appointment of counsel for the guardian because counsel might assist the court in determining the child's best interests and parental fitness.
Procedural history
A petition for appointment of a guardian for K.N. was filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court in 2005, and the child's maternal grandmother was appointed permanent guardian. In the pending fourth removal proceeding initiated by the mother, the guardian's request for appointed counsel was denied. The child then moved for appointment of counsel for the guardian; after denial, the child petitioned the Appeals Court under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of whether appointment of counsel for the indigent guardian would materially assist in determining the child's best interests and parental fitness.