ADOPTION OF KALID (And a Companion Case).

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-356

ADOPTION OF KALID (and a companion case 1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a trial, a judge of the Juvenile Court found the

mother unfit to parent two of her children, Kalid and Toni, and

terminated her parental rights. The mother does not contest the

finding of unfitness but maintains that the Department of

Children and Families (department) failed to make reasonable

efforts to facilitate reunification. 2 We affirm.

Background. Both Kalid and Toni have intensive special

needs. Toni is diagnosed with autism (low-functioning), and, at

age five and six, was nonverbal, not toilet trained, and

required specialized education. In the department's custody, he

1 Adoption of Toni. The children's names are pseudonyms.

2The parental rights of Kalid's father were terminated in
an earlier proceeding. The parental rights of the unknown,
unnamed father of Toni were terminated in this proceeding. No
notices of appeal were filed regarding these termination
decisions.
received applied behavioral analysis services six days a week.

Due to a pica diagnosis, he required full-time supervision.

Toni was born very prematurely at twenty-five weeks'

gestation and, for her early months, it was not clear she would

survive. For the first eight or so months of her life, she was

hospitalized at a Springfield hospital near the mother's

community and, for the first four months, the mother visited

regularly. The department filed this care and protection case

based on concerns about the mother's lack of engagement in

services, active paranoia, treatment of her mental illness

through medication to the exclusion of therapy, a report that

the mother vaped in the neonatal intensive care unit, and

hospital staff reports that the mother behaved inappropriately

with Toni.

After Toni spent the first eight months of her life in the

Springfield hospital, she was transferred to a hospital in

Boston. At the time of trial, the mother had not visited with

Toni since September 2023. The mother found it difficult to get

to the Boston hospital. The department provided bus passes, but

the mother asserted that the cost of transportation between the

bus terminal in Boston and the hospital was prohibitively high.

Further complicating visits, for some of this time, the mother

was on required bed rest at the end of her fourth pregnancy.

2
The judge found that the mother was unable to work with

professionals and providers to coordinate the services and

supports required by her high-needs children. Specific to Toni,

the judge found the mother had no real appreciation for Toni's

needs, that there was no evidence of any bond or connection

between the mother and Toni, and that the mother had never cared

for Toni independently due to Toni's lifelong hospitalization.

Should Toni be placed with the mother, the judge found, Toni

would be "gravely at risk of death or serious, permanent injury"

due to the mother's inability to meet her care needs.

Specific to Kalid, the judge found that the mother did not

ask about the services he receives, did not try to engage with

Kalid at monthly visits (sometimes falling asleep) and was a

passive observer during visits, showing minimal interest in

caring for him. The judge noted that, at trial, the mother was

unsure about the current status of Kalid's pica diagnosis and

had not sought an update. The mother's plan for Kalid, if he

were to be returned to her care, was to have him at school

during the school day and then have one of her family members

pick him up after school and keep him until the end of the

mother's work day at 11 P.M., which the judge characterized as a

plan to have "virtually no awake time" with Kalid. The judge

concluded that the mother was not capable of meeting Kalid's

3
special needs and that he would be "at great risk of serious

abuse and/or neglect" in her care.

The mother's engagement with the department has been

characterized by inconsistency and lack of follow through. The

trial judge found that the mother had "refused to engage in any

services to any degree that might improve her ability to meet

the [c]hildren's needs." She had not scheduled home visits and,

at the time of trial, had not met with a social worker for over

six months. The trial judge found that the mother was aware

that the department viewed her as disengaged.

The mother uses marijuana twice a day to manage her

anxiety. Her drug use contributed to the removal of Kalid in

2019 when the mother described smoking a marijuana cigarette at

her apartment, then driving to her sister's apartment to collect

Kalid, then driving him home and feeling "funny." She did not

acknowledge the danger of consuming marijuana and then driving a

car, with her son as a passenger, while under the influence.

The judge also considered the mother's marijuana use in the

context of her mental health diagnoses. The mother disagreed

with a schizophrenia diagnosis but acknowledged diagnoses of

anxiety and depression. The judge recognized that the mother is

"generally . . . consistent" in taking her psychiatric

medication and has "maintained minimal engagement with an

individual therapist," but found that the mother showed "no

4
insight into the impact her mental health ha[d] on her

parenting," or the risk that her twice-daily habit of smoking

marijuana -- which the judge described as a coping mechanism --

could pose to her children.

Discussion. "In deciding whether to terminate a parent's

rights, a judge must determine whether there is clear and

convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and, if the parent

is unfit, whether the child's best interests will be served by

terminating the legal relation between parent and child."

Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011). Clear and

convincing evidence means that "[t]he requisite proof must be

strong and positive; it must be 'full, clear and decisive.'"

Adoption of Chad, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 828, 838 (2019), quoting

Adoption of Iris, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 95, 105 (1997), S.C., 427

Mass. 582 (1998). "We give substantial deference to a judge's

decision that termination of a parent's rights is in the best

interest[s] of the child, and reverse only where findings of

fact are clearly erroneous or where there is a clear error of

law or abuse of discretion." Adoption of Ilona, supra. As

noted above, the mother does not contest the finding of

unfitness.

We agree with the department that the mother's reasonable

efforts claim was waived. "It is well-established that a parent

must raise a claim of inadequate services in a timely manner."

5
Adoption of Daisy, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 768, 781 (2010), S.C., 460

Mass. 72 (2011). "The parent should assert the claim 'either

when the parenting plan is adopted, when [s]he receives those

services, or shortly thereafter.'" Adoption of West, 97 Mass.

App. Ct. 238, 242 (2020), quoting Adoption of Gregory, 434 Mass.

117, 124 (2001). "A parent cannot raise a claim of inadequate

services for the first time on appeal, as the department would

not have had the opportunity to address it." Adoption of West,

supra. The mother waived this issue by failing to raise it at

or before trial.

Were we to consider the reasonable efforts argument,

however, we would not be persuaded. The record supports the

judge's conclusion that the mother engaged only inconsistently

with the department and failed to comply, in substantial part,

with her action plans. "Evidence of parents' refusal to

cooperate with the department, including failure to maintain

service plans . . . is relevant to the determination of

unfitness." Adoption of Rhona, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 126

(2005). Furthermore, "[t]he department's obligation to make

reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the mother is

contingent upon her obligation to substantially fulfill her

parental responsibilities (including seeking and using

appropriate services)." Adoption of Yalena, 100 Mass. App. Ct.

542, 554 (2021). The mother faults the department for failing

6
to "escalate its involvement or provide more robust supports,"

but fails to acknowledge her own refusal to engage with the

department, respond to outreach from department social workers,

accept additional post-hospitalization supports, or take the

steps recommended on her action plans.

The evidence supported the judge's conclusions that the

mother refused or ignored proffered department services, failed

to make progress on her action plans, used marijuana at

inappropriate and dangerous times, and engaged inconsistently

with her special needs children. She had not visited her

daughter for about eight months at the time of trial and had

only a limited understanding of her son's diagnoses and needs.

This evidence amply supported the judge's determination that the

department met its obligations and "complied with its duty to

make 'reasonable efforts . . . to prevent or eliminate the need

for removal [of the children] from the home.'" Adoption of

Ilona, 459 Mass. at 61, quoting G. L. c. 119, § 29C. See

Adoption of Daisy, 77 Mass. App. Ct. at 782 (mother's delay in

obtaining therapy for herself undermined her inadequate services

claim); Adoption of Eduardo, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 278, 282 (2003)

("Because the mother failed to make use of the services offered

to strengthen and then reunify her family and denied her mental

health needs by refusing both evaluation and treatment, she

cannot successfully argue that [the department's] reasonable

7
efforts failed to accommodate properly her mental health needs

or to strengthen her family").

A "judge is not required to grant [a parent] an indefinite

opportunity for reform." Adoption of Cadence, 81 Mass. App. Ct.

162, 169 (2012). "Stability in the lives of children is

important, particularly in a case that has continued for a long

period of time in the hope that the [mother] could and would

successfully rehabilitate [herself]." Adoption of Nancy, 443

Mass. 512, 517 (2005). We are mindful that "the focus of

proceedings that terminate or curtail parental rights should be

the best interest[s] of the child." Adoption of Olivia, 53

Mass. App. Ct. 670, 677 (2002). The judge's thoughtful findings

and conclusions properly focused on these children and their

needs, and her decision that termination was in their best

interests was supported by clear and convincing evidence. 3
Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Singh,
Hershfang & Wood, JJ. 4),

Clerk

Entered: February 9, 2026.

3 To the extent that we do not discuss other arguments
raised by the mother in her brief, they have not been
overlooked. "We find nothing in them that requires discussion."
Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

8