ADOPTION OF GURPRIT (And Two Companion Cases).

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

23-P-757

ADOPTION OF GURPRIT (and two companion cases1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a bench trial, a Juvenile Court judge found the

mother and father unfit to parent their three children and

terminated their parental rights. The mother, the father, and

two of the children (Gurprit and Jamaal) appeal, arguing that

the Department of Children and Families (DCF) failed to present

clear and convincing evidence of unfitness and that the judge

abused her discretion in terminating the mother's and the

father's parental rights. The mother also challenges the

judge's order on posttermination visitation. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the judge's extensive factual

findings, reserving some details for later discussion. The

mother has been involved with DCF both as a child and as a

1Adoption of Liza and Adoption of Jamaal. The children's
names are pseudonyms.
mother. She has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress

disorder (PTSD) and anxiety, which caused her to attempt suicide

twice during her youth and multiple times thereafter, including

during the pendency of this case.

The mother and the father started dating in 2009 when she

was a freshman in high school and he was a sophomore. Their

first child, Gurprit, was born in 2010, and their younger two

children, Liza and Jamaal, were born in 2012 and 2013

respectively. The mother and the father's relationship was

fraught with domestic violence. The father was charged with

assault and battery against the mother while she was pregnant

with Gurprit; less than two years later, he was charged with

assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon against the

mother. The mother was granted restraining orders against the

father after these incidents. The mother was also the

perpetrator of some of the violence and was later charged with

assault and battery against the father.

DCF first became involved with the family in late 2012 when

the mother filed a report under G. L. c. 119, § 51A (51A report)

against herself, stating that she had physically abused Gurprit

on three occasions. The mother, who was then living in the home

of her great-grandmother, with whom she had a tumultuous

relationship, disclosed that she hit Gurprit because he was

2
aggravating the great-grandmother. After an investigation DCF

supported the allegations.2

Four months later, two 51A reports were filed alleging

medical neglect of Gurprit by the mother. By that time Gurprit

had been diagnosed with a seizure disorder, a heart murmur, and

a cancerous tumor on his kidney, which required surgery,

chemotherapy, and radiation. After an investigation DCF

supported the allegations, finding that the mother failed to

make medical appointments for Gurprit, was not consistently

administering his medications, and was not available to his

medical providers.

In 2014 multiple 51A reports were filed, and supported by

DCF, based on the children's exposure to physical violence

between the father and the mother. During one incident in June

2014, the father punched the mother in the face and pushed

Gurprit off the bed when he tried to intervene, causing him to

hit his head on an open drawer as he fell. The father then

pulled the mother off the bed and punched her again. The father

fled the scene before the police arrived and was arrested and

2 As relevant to this appeal, DCF's regulations provide that
a 51A report will be "supported" if "[t]here is reasonable cause
to believe a child(ren) was abused or neglected, or was or is at
substantial risk of being abused or neglected" and "[t]he action
or inactions by the parent(s) . . . place the child(ren) in
danger or present substantial risk to the child(ren)'s safety or
well-being." 110 Code Mass. Regs. § 4.32(2)(a) (2009).

3
charged with assault and battery the next day. Four months

later, the parents got into another physical altercation while

the children were sleeping. The children woke up, became

scared, and started crying.

In 2015 multiple 51A reports were filed, and supported by

DCF, for medical neglect of Gurprit. On two occasions (in April

and July 2015), Gurprit was found unresponsive and transported

to the hospital, where providers determined that he had

hypoglycemia and was not eating enough. DCF's investigation

also revealed that both parents repeatedly failed to take

Gurprit to his neurology, oncology, and pediatric appointments.

This led to DCF filing a care and protection petition on behalf

of Gurprit on July 10, 2015. On July 30, 2015, Gurprit was

placed in DCF custody.

In September 2015 three 51A reports were filed, and

supported by DCF, for neglect of Liza and Jamaal by the mother.

While the mother left the children unattended, a neighbor's

child kicked and punched Jamaal, causing swelling and bruising

on his face and head, abrasions on his back and knee, and

scratches on his face and chest. Jamaal was transported to the

hospital where a doctor concluded that, contrary to the mother's

account, the extent of Jamaal's injuries indicated that the

assault had lasted for far longer than a few minutes. On

September 10, 2015, DCF filed an emergency care and protection

4
petition on behalf of Liza and Jamaal, and both children were

placed in foster care.

In February 2016 the mother obtained a restraining order

against the father. The father had repeatedly stalked and

threatened to kill the mother after she said that she no longer

wanted to be with him. In April 2016 the father was arrested

for violating the restraining order and held for six months

after a dangerousness hearing. In June 2017 the mother was

granted another restraining order against the father after he

threatened to kill her and the children. From 2016 to July

2019, the father had no contact with the children and did not

provide any support to the mother.

Meanwhile, after the children were removed, the mother

engaged in her action plan tasks, including individual therapy,

supportive care, and parenting work. As a result the children

were reunified with the mother between June and September 2017

and custody was returned to her in December 2017. At that time

the mother was living with her wife, Ana, whom she had recently

married. The children remained in the mother's custody for only

one year, during which time multiple 51A reports were filed

alleging neglect of the children by the mother. Gurprit

reported to the DCF social worker that he saw the mother and Ana

fight twice and that on one of those occasions the mother

threatened Ana with a wrench. Jamaal reported that the mother

5
and Ana screamed and hit each other when they were mad, and all

three children stated that the mother told them not to tell

anyone what was happening in the home. DCF supported the

allegations of neglect and further supported a 51A report

alleging that the mother abused Gurprit by hitting him on the

back of his neck with enough force to leave a bruise.

In December 2018 the mother asked DCF to put the children

in foster care because she had nowhere to live and was unable to

care for them. DCF took custody and then filed the underlying

care and protection petition on December 19, 2018. In July 2019

the father became aware of the petition through newspaper

publication and contacted his attorney.

The children experienced difficulties transitioning to

foster care. Gurprit engaged in self-injurious behavior, made

homicidal statements, watched video recordings on YouTube about

suicide, and attempted to drown another foster child in the

bathtub. After he broke multiple chairs at school, he was

admitted to a community-based acute treatment (CBAT) unit at St.

Ann's Home in Methuen, where his behavior improved. Liza and

Jamaal also had multiple behavioral outbursts necessitating

placements in several different foster homes. Each was also

admitted at one point in 2019 to a CBAT unit at the Walker Home

in Needham.

6
DCF planned to reunify Jamaal with the father in October

2020. At the last minute, however, the father cancelled the

reunification, stating that his living situation had become

unstable because he had an argument with his then live-in

girlfriend. Following this failed reunification, Jamaal's

mental health deteriorated. He attempted suicide and was

admitted to a hospital where he was restrained and medicated

with an antipsychotic. Jamaal, who was seven years old at the

time, stated that he was "sad not to go live with dad" and that

"nobody wants me."

After the children's second removal, the mother continued

to experience volatility in her relationships and housing

instability and also began drinking heavily while smoking

marijuana often, which she continued to do until at least 2021.3

In May 2019 the mother and Ana had a physical altercation,

resulting in the mother's arrest for assault and battery and

incarceration for thirty days. The mother and Ana reunited a

few months later, but their relationship continued to be marked

by violence. From January 2019 to January 2021, the mother's

housing situation remained unstable, as did her employment. She

3 To the extent Gurprit and Jamaal challenge the judge's
factual findings regarding the mother's alcohol and marijuana
use, we conclude that the findings are supported by the mother's
testimony and are not clearly erroneous. See Adoption of Ilona,
459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011).

7
was fired from one job in 2019 for an undisclosed reason and

from another in 2020 for calling a coworker a "dog."

In late 2020 the mother moved into a shelter with the hopes

of reunifying with Jamaal. In January 2021 DCF placed Jamaal

with the mother, but their reunification lasted less than six

months. During this time Jamaal was often falling asleep at

school because the mother was bringing him with her to work at

night; he also made homicidal and suicidal statements at school,

which led to his hospitalization. In April 2021 the mother and

Ana had a physical altercation at the shelter, which Jamaal

witnessed.

In June 2021 the mother became agitated at shelter staff

during an unsupervised visit with Liza. The mother met with a

DCF social worker and told him that she had many issues with the

shelter and wanted to stay at a hotel. When the social worker

said he would have to take Jamaal if the mother did not return

to the shelter, the mother fled with Jamaal. Liza became very

upset and started crying. After speaking with the police, the

mother met the social worker at a police station, where the

situation escalated. The mother yelled at the officers that

they would have to put a bullet in her head in order to take

Jamaal, reached for their guns, and threatened to commit

"suicide by cop." The mother was holding Jamaal, who was crying

and yelling at her to calm down and listen to the officers.

8
Eight officers were required to restrain the mother and carry

her to an ambulance. Jamaal, who was significantly traumatized

by this incident, was returned to foster care but soon placed in

a CBAT unit at St. Ann's Home after he punched his foster

parents, locked himself in the bathroom, and tried to jump out

the window. About five months later, the mother tried to commit

suicide and was involuntarily hospitalized. In October 2021 DCF

changed its goal for the children from reunification to

adoption.

At the time of trial in mid-2022, Gurprit was in fifth

grade and had recently transitioned to a group home at St. Ann's

Home. He had diagnoses of PTSD, attention deficit disorder

(ADD)/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),

adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, and an

unspecified depressive disorder. He was taking various

medications and required support to manage his emotional

outbursts, but had a strong bond with the staff at St. Ann's

Home and was making progress in therapy. Liza was living in a

foster home that she had been in since 2020.4 She was enrolled

in third grade at a therapeutic school but had improved to such

an extent that she was ready to enter a public school. She had

diagnoses of ADD/ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder and was

4 After the trial concluded, Liza's foster placement
"disrupted," and she was placed at St. Ann's Home.

9
attending weekly meetings with her school counselor while on

waitlists for therapy. Jamaal was in second grade at the St.

Ann's Home residential school, where he still behaved

aggressively despite weekly therapy. He had diagnoses of an

unspecified trauma and stressor disorder, disruptive mood

dysregulation disorder, and ADD/ADHD. DCF had not yet

identified a preadoptive home for the children, but the adoption

worker testified that she was confident in her ability to find a

home based on her success in placing children with similar needs

in the past.

Discussion. 1. Unfitness. Before terminating a parent's

rights, the judge must first determine whether there is "clear

and convincing evidence, based on subsidiary findings proved by

at least a fair preponderance of evidence, that the parent is

currently unfit to care for the child." Adoption of Jacques, 82

Mass. App. Ct. 601, 606 (2012). "[T]he idea of 'parental

unfitness' means 'grievous shortcomings or handicaps' that put

the child's welfare 'much at hazard.'" Adoption of Katharine,

42 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 28 (1997), quoting Petition of the New

England Home for Little Wanderers to Dispense with Consent to

Adoption, 367 Mass. 631, 646 (1975). "Parental unfitness is

determined by considering a parent's character, temperament,

conduct, and capacity to provide for the child's particular

10
needs, affections, and age." Care & Protection of Vick, 89

Mass. App. Ct. 704, 706 (2016).

We discern no error in the judge's determination that DCF

met its burden of establishing the mother's unfitness. The

mother has a history of significant domestic violence in her

relationships, both as a victim and as a perpetrator, and the

children were often exposed or directly subjected to the

violence. By the time of trial, the mother and Ana were

separated, but remained married. The mother did not participate

consistently in domestic violence services, and the judge found

that she had not gained insight into the serious impact that

domestic violence had on the children. The mother's failure to

address her history with domestic violence demonstrated her

inability to prioritize the children's welfare and safety. See

Custody of Vaughn, 422 Mass. 590, 595 (1996) (witnessing

domestic violence is itself "a distinctly grievous kind of

harm"); Adoption of Paula, 420 Mass. 716, 729-730 (1995)

(finding of unfitness supported by evidence that mother was

unable to comprehend effect of abuse on children and

participation in services had not appreciably improved her

parenting capacity).

The mother also had serious mental health and anger

management issues that she failed to address. She reported

having suicidal thoughts in the weeks leading up to trial but

11
was not in treatment and did not have a psychiatrist.

Throughout the proceedings, although the mother engaged in some

individual therapy, her participation in services was largely

inconsistent. She did not engage in anger management education,

despite her history of lashing out at romantic partners, DCF

workers, shelter staff, coworkers, and family members, including

the children themselves. See Guardianship of a Minor, 1 Mass.

App. Ct. 392, 396 (1973), quoting Richards v. Forrest, 278 Mass.

547, 552 (1932) ("Violence of temper . . . might constitute

unfitness"). As the judge found, the mother's volatile behavior

"alienates all potential sources of support in raising her

children."

This constellation of factors in turn diminished the

mother's ability to effectively parent the children and provide

them with a safe home environment. The mother has not had

stable housing since 2015, which the judge found was directly

attributable to her struggles with anger management and

unaddressed mental health issues. The mother's frequent

physical and verbal altercations with shelter staff and people

with whom she was living often required the mother and the

children to seek alternative housing, causing the children

substantial trauma and leaving them homeless on several

occasions. The judge further found a direct correlation between

the mother's neglect of the children and their struggles with

12
their own mental health. Even by the time of trial, however,

the mother could not accurately identify the children's

diagnoses, answer questions about their medications, or describe

their educational needs. See Adoption of Oliver, 28 Mass. App.

Ct. 620, 625 (1990) (mother properly found unfit where she had

little understanding of child's substantial needs). All of this

evidence taken together clearly and convincingly established

that the mother is unfit.

Clear and convincing evidence also supported the judge's

determination that the father is unfit. As discussed, the

father's relationship with the mother was marked by extensive

domestic violence, which often occurred in front of the children

or involved them. See Custody of Vaughn, 422 Mass. at 595.

When the mother tried to end their relationship in 2016, the

father threatened violence against her and the children. He

then effectively abandoned the children for three years, despite

knowing that the mother was not providing them with a safe and

stable home environment. See Adoption of Scott, 59 Mass. App.

Ct. 274, 275 n.3 (2003) (finding of unfitness supported by

evidence that mother left child "with inappropriate caretakers

for extended periods").

Even after the father reentered the children's lives in

July 2019, he showed that he placed his "own needs above those

of the children." Adoption of Daniel, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 195,

13
202 (2003). Although DCF was willing to try reunifying the

father with Jamaal, the father cancelled the reunification at

the last minute, causing Jamaal to suffer extreme emotional

harm. And, like the mother, the father had little insight into

the children's substantial needs. He could not articulate any

of the children's diagnoses, medications, or educational needs

and was unwilling to seek out this information from the

children's therapists, educators, and medical providers. He was

also inconsistent with services and was unable to secure stable

housing throughout the pendency of the case. Furthermore, at

trial, the father took the position that custody of the children

should be returned to the mother while he would help with

childcare. The judge was thus warranted in concluding that the

father saw himself as a "last resort" for the children and that

he was "not willing to step up and be a full time parent." This

evidence clearly and convincingly establishes the father's

unfitness. See Adoption of Holly, 432 Mass. 680, 690 (2000)

(father properly found unfit where he lacked insight into

children's needs and could not articulate concrete plan to care

for them).5

5 The father assigns error to a number of the judge's
subsidiary findings. We have reviewed each of his challenges
and conclude that they "take issue with the judge's assessment
of credibility and the weight of the evidence, to which we
accord substantial deference." Adoption of Peggy, 436 Mass.

14
We are unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments that the

evidence of the parents' unfitness was stale. The judge had

evidence before her that, even at the time of trial, the parents

lacked insight into how their behavior affected the children and

did not understand the children's resulting significant needs.

As the judge found, the parents had not participated

consistently in services and had not "sufficiently dealt with

their anger management so as to prevent future harm to the . . .

children." See Adoption of Flavia, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 49

(2024) ("the parents' significant history of domestic violence

was not stale even though the relationship had improved by the

time of trial, because in their testimony both parents denied

and minimized the abuse and its effects on all three children").

Thus, this is a case where "[p]rior history . . . has prognostic

value." Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass. App. Ct. at 607, quoting

Adoption of George, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 265, 268 (1989). The

parents engaged in a decade-long pattern of volatility,

instability, and neglect of the children and showed no

meaningful improvement through participation in services. DCF's

690, 702 (2002). We see no basis on which to disturb the
judge's view of the evidence. In addition, we need not reach
Gurprit's and Jamaal's claim that the judge impermissibly
shifted the burden of proof to the father, as they do not
support the claim with adequate discussion. See Mass. R. A. P.
16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).

15
attempts to reunify the mother with the children failed, as did

its attempt to reunify the father with Jamaal. The judge was

entitled to rely on this past history, which had continuing

vitality, in assessing the parents' fitness. See Adoption of

Ulrich, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 676 (2019) ("a judge can consider

a pattern of past conduct to predict future ability and

performance" [quotation and citation omitted]).

2. Termination. Once a parent is found unfit, the judge

must then determine whether the child's best interests will be

served by terminating the parent's legal relationship with the

child. See Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005). We

accord "substantial deference to a judge's decision that

termination of a parent's rights is in the best interest of the

child, and reverse only where the findings of fact are clearly

erroneous or where there is a clear error of law or abuse of

discretion." Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011).

Here, the judge was within her discretion to find that the

mother's and the father's unfitness was not temporary and that

termination was in the children's best interests, in light of

each parent's failure to meaningfully address the issues that

led to the children's removal, as discussed above. See Adoption

of Ilona, 459 Mass. at 60 ("Because childhood is fleeting, a

parent's unfitness is not temporary if it is reasonably likely

to continue for a prolonged or indeterminate period"). Contrary

16
to Gurprit's and Jamaal's argument, the judge did consider their

desire for reunification but was warranted in concluding that

DCF's plan of adoption offered the best hope for their future

stability and success. See Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. at 518.

(children's wishes in custody determinations should be

considered by judge but are "neither decisive . . . nor outcome

determinative"). Nor are we persuaded by the mother's argument

that DCF's plan was unrealistic because it "was simply not

viable" to identify a single adoptive resource for all three

children. The judge expressly credited the adoption worker's

testimony that she was confident she could find a home where the

children could live together, given her past success in locating

homes for children with similar needs. We defer to the judge's

assessment of witness credibility. See Adoption of Larry, 434

Mass. 456, 462 (2001).

3. Visitation. Following entry of the termination

decrees, the judge scheduled additional evidentiary hearings to

address visitation. Meanwhile, both parents continued to have

visits with the children. After the hearings, which were held

in early 2023, the judge ordered that the mother have four

posttermination visits per year, while affording the father

monthly posttermination visitation. The judge deferred entering

an order on postadoption visitation until adoptive resources

were identified for the children.

17
The mother challenges the judge's decision to order only

quarterly posttermination visitation, arguing that the judge

should have credited the opinion of the mother's expert witness

that monthly visitation would be appropriate.6 Whether "to order

posttermination or postadoption visits is left to the judge's

discretion." Adoption of West, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 247

(2020). We discern no abuse of discretion here. The mother's

expert had not interviewed the children in over one year. The

expert therefore had not spoken with the children after the

mother's posttermination visit in November 2022, which, as the

judge found, was "disastrous" and "resulted in police

intervention and a significant disruption" for the children.

Indeed, the visit ended with "all three children having to be

taken by ambulance from the DCF office to be crisis screened at

the hospital," where Liza had to be physically and chemically

restrained. In light of this evidence, the judge's decision to

limit the mother's posttermination visits to four times per year

was well within her discretion. For the same reason, we see no

merit to the mother's argument that the judge abused her

discretion by affording the father more frequent visits.

6 While this appeal was pending, DCF filed a motion in the
Juvenile Court to modify the posttermination visitation order.
Because the motion has not yet been resolved, we address the
visitation issues as they currently stand.

18
Finally, we are unpersuaded by the mother's claim that the

judge should have made an order for postadoption visitation.

The judge appropriately reserved that issue for further hearing

after the identification of preadoptive homes for the children.

See Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass. App. Ct. at 610.

Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Grant &
Smyth, JJ.7),

Clerk

Entered: August 20, 2024.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

19