ADOPTION OF JAWON (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

24-P-1011

ADOPTION OF JAWON (and a companion case1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The mother appeals from decrees entered in the Juvenile

Court finding her unfit and terminating her parental rights to

two of her children.2,3 She argues, inter alia, that the

children were erroneously removed from her custody without a

showing that they were in immediate danger of serious abuse or

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

2The mother's eldest child was initially a party to the
care and protection petition but was dismissed after reaching
the age of eighteen.

3The father signed a stipulation voluntarily terminating
his parental rights to the children and is not a party to this
appeal.
neglect, and thus the subsequent determinations of unfitness and

termination of parental rights were erroneous.4 We affirm.5

Background. Following eight, nonconsecutive days of trial

in March through July of 2023, the judge issued comprehensive

findings of fact and conclusions of law, which find ample

support in the record.6 Six witnesses testified at trial and

seventy-seven exhibits were admitted in evidence.

The two subject children in this matter are Jawon, born in

2016, and Aidan, born in 2018. Jawon is on the autism spectrum

and has received early intervention and special education

services. Aidan likewise has received early intervention

services and language, speech, and occupational therapy.

The mother is a Hispanic woman who was forty-eight years

old at the start of trial. She has had interactions with the

Department of Children and Families (DCF) since 2010 and a

4 Counsel for the mother filed the appellant brief pursuant
to Care & Protection of Valerie, 403 Mass. 317, 318 (1988), and
Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 208 (1981).

5 Per the joint request of the parties, this case was
submitted on briefs and without oral argument. See Mass.
R. A. P. 22 (f), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1651 (2019).

6 General Laws c. 119, § 51A, reports were admitted in
evidence solely "to set the stage," and G. L. c. 119, § 51B,
reports were considered by the judge "for statements of
fact . . . not for purposes of diagnosis, prognosis and
evaluation." See Custody of Michel, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 260, 266-
267 (1990).

2
criminal history dating back to 2007 involving assaultive

behavior and domestic violence. Both before and after removal

of the children, the mother engaged in physical altercations.

During 2019 alone, police officers responded four times to calls

involving domestic disputes between the mother and the father.

The mother has also been the victim of domestic violence. There

was abundant evidence that the children were exposed on myriad

occasions to domestic violence.

DCF filed the instant care and protection petition on

October 2, 2018, and removed the children. Following the

mother's waiver of the seventy-hour hearing, DCF retained

custody and subsequently placed the children with their

preadoptive family where they remained through trial. From the

time the children were removed from her custody, the mother

failed to consistently engage in services and failed to comply

with action plans and tasks assigned by DCF. She declined to

attend various meetings and refused to sign releases or provide

her address and other information sought by her social worker

and DCF. The judge found, and the record supports, that the

mother "did not make any verifiable progress" on her action

plans between April 2017 and the time of trial in March of 2023,

and did not "make any appreciable progress towards improving the

neglectful conditions from which the children were removed in

2018." The mother was also inconsistent with visitation, and

3
after an in-person visit with her children on August 19, 2021,

she did not visit them until February 10, 2022, and, following a

September of 2022 visit, she had no contact with the children

until March of 2023.

The mother did not appear for the first day of trial and

misrepresented her reasons for not attending. During her trial

testimony, the mother refused to answer questions and "presented

with erratic and agitated behavior." The judge found that she

was evasive and lacking in truthfulness and credibility.

Following trial, the judge ordered the entry of decrees

finding the mother unfit and terminating her parental rights.

The judge approved the adoption plan proposed by DCF and

concluded that posttermination and postadoption visitation with

the mother was not in the children's best interests.

Discussion. The mother first contends that her children

should not have been removed from her custody because there was

no showing that they were in "immediate danger of serious abuse

or neglect."7 Although not fully clear from her brief, it

appears that the mother further contends that because of the

7 We see no evidence in the record that indicates any error
in DCF's initial removal decision. In any event, after the
initial removal, the mother waived her right to a temporary
custody hearing and stipulated that DCF would have temporary
custody. She thus waived her right to contest the propriety of
the initial removal.

4
improper removal, the subsequent determinations of unfitness and

termination of parental rights were invalid.

"To terminate parental rights to a child and to dispense

with parental consent to adoption, a judge must find by clear

and convincing evidence, based on subsidiary findings proved by

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

unfit to care for the child and that termination is in the

child's best interests." Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass. App. Ct.

601, 606 (2012). "Parental unfitness is determined by

considering a parent's character, temperament, conduct, and

capacity to provide for the child's particular needs,

affections, and age." Care & Protection of Vick, 89 Mass. App.

Ct. 704, 706 (2016). We give substantial deference to the

judge's findings, which we do not disturb unless they are

clearly erroneous. See Adoption of Jacques, supra at 606-607.

For the myriad reasons detailed above, the mother's claims

are without merit. The record supports the judge's 216 findings

of fact, including her determinations that the mother did not,

and could not, protect the children from exposure to domestic

violence, creating an unsafe environment for them; she was

unwilling or unable to obtain services for her children's needs;

she refused to acknowledge the various needs of her children;

she refused to engage in services or to recognize, much less

remedy, her parenting shortfalls; and she failed to consistently

5
attend visits with the children. The record supports the

judge's conclusion that DCF proved by clear and convincing

evidence that the mother is unfit.

As to termination of parental rights, the judge evaluated

the provisions of G. L. c. 210, § 3 (c), and found factors (ii),

(iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), and (xii) to be

applicable. The record supports this determination, and the

judge's conclusions. Moreover, as detailed above, in light of

the mother's failure to meaningfully address the issues that led

to the removal of the children, there was ample record evidence

to support the judge's findings and determination that the

mother was unfit, and that termination of her parental rights

was in the children's best interests.

Conclusion. The record and the judge's detailed and

comprehensive findings compel the conclusion that the

termination decision "reflect[s] an even-handed assessment of

all the relevant facts," Petition of the Dep't of Pub. Welfare

to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 376 Mass. 252, 261 (1978),

and that the judge did not abuse her discretion in entering the

6
decrees finding the mother unfit and terminating her parental

rights.8

Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, Neyman &
Tan, JJ.9),

Clerk

Entered: April 30, 2025.

8 The mother's claim that she is the victim of white
supremacy is unsupported by the record. There is no evidence to
support any claim of racial bias. We further note that the
mother's argument is unsupported by citation to any legal
authority and does not rise to the level of appellate argument.
See Adoption of Zak, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 840, 842 n.4 (2017)
("Assertions of error that lack legal citation do not rise to
the level of appellate argument and will not be reviewed by this
court"). The mother's claims that (1) she "had done nothing
wrong to cause the removal of her children," and (2) the judge
erred in drawing a negative inference from her failure to answer
questions during trial, are likewise unsupported by citation to
any legal authority. Accordingly, appellate relief is not
warranted. In any event, the record belies the mother's
assertion that her refusal to answer questions at trial was
appropriate. The trial transcript reveals that the mother
refused to answer questions that were relevant to the critical
issues of unfitness and the children's best interests. There
was no error.

9 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

7