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.
Topics
Practice areas
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.
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.
Key quotations
“The evident purpose of the sibling visitation statute is best understood by viewing the enumerated custodial arrangements as illustrative rather than exhaustive.” (467 Mass. at 279-280)
“The standard permits visitation only where the petitioning child has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation would serve the best interests of each sibling subject to a visitation order.” (467 Mass. at 284-285)
“Whether such fragility persisted, and the likely impact of the proposed visitation on the well being of Fergus and Rosalie, were proper subjects for expert opinion, and the judge need not and should not have made his decision without it.” (467 Mass. at 289-290)
Factual background
Jamison and three siblings were placed under the guardianship of their maternal aunt and her spouse in 2005 after significant family problems involving parental substance abuse and domestic violence. Jamison was removed from the guardians' custody in 2007 and placed in the permanent custody of the Department of Children and Families in 2008, while Fergus and Rosalie returned to the guardians. Jamison sought visitation in 2011; although he and his social worker supported contact, Fergus and Rosalie opposed it or expressed apprehension, and the record contained indications of trauma and possible mental-health difficulties. The Juvenile Court ordered visitation, but the evidence did not adequately establish the likely psychological impact on Fergus and Rosalie, and no relevant expert testimony or psychological evaluations were presented.
Procedural history
Jamison, a child in the permanent custody of the Department of Children and Families, petitioned the Juvenile Court for visitation with Fergus and Rosalie, who were wards of legal guardians. The Juvenile Court determined that it had jurisdiction, appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem for the wards, and, after an evidentiary hearing, ordered supervised written correspondence and quarterly visitation. The guardians and wards appealed; after denying a request for a stay, the Appeals Court matter was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Remand instructions
The order allowing the sibling-visitation motion was vacated and set aside. On remand, the Juvenile Court must conduct further proceedings and require psychological evaluations of Fergus and Rosalie as necessary and appropriate to assess the impact of the requested visitation, with expert evidence and other relevant evidence available when determining whether visitation is in the individualized best interests of each child.