ADOPTION OF HALEA (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-755

ADOPTION OF HALEA (and a companion case1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The father appeals from decrees issued by a judge of the

Juvenile Court following a trial finding the father unfit to

parent his children, Halea and Lacey, and terminating his

parental rights pursuant to G. L. c. 210, § 3.2 We affirm.

Background. We summarize the trial judge's findings of

fact, supplemented by uncontroverted evidence from the record,

and reserve certain facts for later discussion.

The Department of Children and Families (department) has

been involved with the family since Halea's birth in 2016. The

father has a long history of domestic violence and has been

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

2The mother entered into a stipulation terminating her
parental rights and is not a party to this appeal.
diagnosed with a delusional disorder. In 2016, the father was

arrested for assault and battery against the mother, an incident

for which Halea was present. In May 2018, police responded to

an incident involving an argument between the parents in front

of the children, and the mother smashing the windshield of the

father's car. When the police told the father that they were

arresting the mother and asked him if he could care for the

children, he replied that he could not. On September 15, 2018,

police responded to a domestic violence altercation between the

parents at which the children were present.

On August 1, 2022, just one month before trial commenced,

officers were dispatched to perform "a wellbeing check" and

found the father asleep in a vehicle that was "in drive and

running, sitting at a green light." The father became "irate

and argumentative" after the officer told him that the vehicle

would have to be towed because the insurance had been revoked.

The father clenched his right hand, took a "fighting stance,"

and walked toward the officer shouting profanities and

threatening to beat up the officer. When the officer attempted

to place the father under arrest, the father struggled,

resisted, and got into a physical altercation with the officers,

injuring one of them.

2
On September 17, 2018, the department filed the present

care and protection petition pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 24, and

the children were placed in the department's custody where they

remained at the time of trial.

The father started attending a domestic violence group, a

task on his department action plan, but stopped after ten

sessions. Because the father denied having any issues with

domestic violence, the department agreed that the father could

instead participate in an anger management program. At the time

of trial, the father had completed two anger management classes.

The father consistently visited with the children from 2018

until the end of 2019. After that, the father did not visit the

children for over two years. When COVID-19 restrictions were in

place, the father was offered video visits but did not

participate in any.

Lacey was four years old, and Halea was six, at the time of

trial. The children are placed with a family member, who is

their foster parent and proposed preadoptive parent. Both

children have been diagnosed with developmental delays. Lacey

has been diagnosed with autism. The foster parent facilitates

Lacey's participation in Applied Analysis services. There are

concerns that Halea is autistic, but she has not yet been

diagnosed. Both children have individualized education plans in

3
school to address their developmental delays. The foster parent

has advocated for the services and ensures that the children

consistently receive them. She also works with service

providers to develop strategies to respond to the children's

behavioral challenges.

Discussion. 1. The judge's comments during trial. The

father contends that the judge made comments during trial

suggesting that she had improperly prejudged the case. After

the children's cross-examination of the department's second

witness, the judge stated:

"I do want to say prior to beginning the case today, I did
have an opportunity to review all of the exhibits that were
uploaded . . . . Considering those exhibits . . . , as
well as the testimony so far, I would encourage people to
use the lunchbreak to reconsider the agreements that have
been proposed."

The father did not object to the comments at trial, did not

move for a mistrial, and did not ask the judge to recuse

herself. Because the issue was not properly raised in the trial

court, it is waived, and we decline to address it. See Adoption

of Leland, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 580, 588 (2006).

2. The evidence at trial. The father also argues that the

judge's findings were tainted by her prejudgment of the case and

that the evidence did not demonstrate that he would likely

remain unfit for the foreseeable future. We are not persuaded.

4
On review, "we must determine whether the trial judge

abused [her] discretion or committed a clear error of law."

Adoption of Elena, 446 Mass. 24, 30 (2006). The judge's fitness

determination must be supported by "specific and detailed"

findings that demonstrate parental unfitness by clear and

convincing evidence. Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 799

(1993). "We accord deference to a trial judge's assessment of

the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence."

Adoption of Olivette, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 141, 157 (2011).

"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). Recognizing that termination of

parental rights is an "extreme step, a judge must decide both

whether the parent is currently unfit and whether, on the basis

of credible evidence, there is a reasonable likelihood that the

parent's unfitness at the time of trial may be only temporary"

(quotations and citations omitted). Id.

The evidence supported the judge's conclusion that the

father's unfitness was not temporary and was likely to continue

indefinitely. See Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass at 59-60

5
("Because childhood is fleeting, a parent's unfitness is not

temporary if it is reasonably likely to continue for a prolonged

or indeterminate period.") During the four years that the case

had been pending, the father failed to consistently engage in

services. He stopped attending a domestic violence class and

did not consistently attend therapy. In 2018, the father

refused to work with the department because he felt the social

workers and others in the department were "trying to set him up

or keep him away from his family." He demonstrated an

unwillingness to address domestic violence and mental health

concerns and an unwillingness to reengage in therapeutic

services. The father did not think he needed parent education

because he believed he was an "excellent parent."

The father's extensive history of unacknowledged and

unaddressed domestic violence is further evidence that the

father's unfitness was not temporary. Children exposed to

domestic violence "suffer[ ] a distinctly grievous kind of harm"

that is relevant to parental fitness. Custody of Vaughn, 422

Mass. 590, 595 (1996). Although the father now concedes that he

had a "serious history of domestic violence," he contends that

the issue is stale because the last domestic violence incident

with the mother took place three years before the trial. We are

not persuaded. As noted supra, the father and mother had a

6
relationship characterized by domestic violence. This violence

continued after the children were removed from their care. In

May 2019, police officers responded to a call from the mother.

When they arrived, they saw the father holding the mother down

on the ground. The mother told the police that the father

choked her and poured chemicals all over her.

The father's domestic violence issues were longstanding and

predated his relationship with the mother, characterizing his

previous relationships. Dating back to February 1999, the

father perpetrated numerous acts of domestic violence against

two prior girlfriends which were the basis for criminal charges

and allegations including rape, domestic abuse, threats, and

violation of G. L. c. 209A restraining orders. Despite his

extensive history of domestic violence, including six

restraining orders issued against him, the father denied

engaging in any domestic violence and testified that he "knew

[he] didn't need" services for domestic violence.

The evidence supported the judge's finding that the father

failed to productively engage in services. Despite the father's

participation in two anger management classes, he continued to

display volatile behavior. The record supported the judge's

finding that the father's "inability to manage his anger

persists, as evidenced by his arrest" for charges including

7
threats, resisting arrest, assault and battery on a police

officer, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon "just a

month before trial commenced." "Even if a parent engages in

some of the services offered by the department, mere

participation in the services does not render a parent fit

without evidence of appreciable improvement in [the parent's]

ability to meet the needs of the child[ren]" (quotations and

citations omitted). Adoption of Breck, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 652,

660 (2025).

The father failed to consistently visit the children during

the four years the case was pending, allowing two years to pass

without seeing his children at all. He blamed the department

for his lack of visits even though the department attempted to

contact him and engage him. He only resumed visits five months

before trial commenced. See Adoption of Darla, 56 Mass. App.

Ct. 519, 522 (2002) (failure to visit child supports finding of

parental unfitness). The children have exhibited emotional

dysregulation following the visits. When they asked the father

if they could call him by his first name, he started calling

Halea by different names, causing her to become upset. The

evidence supported the judge's finding that the father declined

the opportunity to have visits facilitated by a program that

provided additional supervised parent-child visits and parenting

8
education. At the intake for the program, the father stated

that he did not feel he needed supervision or education.

The evidence supported the judge's finding that the

children "require a structured, child-centered environment where

their basic needs and special needs are consistently anticipated

and met without fail." As the judge found, the children's

special needs "require consistent engagement in necessary

services, as well as monitoring for possible future services."

The father argues that the judge erred by finding that he did

not have the necessary skills to address the children's special

needs and that he should not have been "faulted . . . for

lacking those skills" where the department "had not offered the

father any specialized training to address his daughter[s]’

needs." The judge did not err. The father had not parented the

children in four years and the judge found that he could not

explain his understanding of what autism is and what it

requires. See Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 608-

609 (2012) (sufficient nexus between shortcomings and ability to

care for child's special needs where parent exhibited limited

understanding of child's diagnoses and had not parented child in

five years); Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense

with Consent to Adoption, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 125 (1984)

("The specialized needs of a particular child when combined with

9
the deficiencies of a parent's character, temperament, capacity,

or conduct may clearly establish parental unfitness”).

Furthermore, "[a] parent cannot raise a claim of inadequate

services for the first time on appeal." Adoption of West, 97

Mass. App. Ct. 238, 242 (2020). See id. ("Raising the issue at

an early stage in the proceedings allows the department to

remedy the inadequate services").

The father also contends that the judge's findings ignored

evidence favorable to him. This argument lacks merit. The

judge's findings acknowledged evidence favorable to the father

including the father's participation in anger management

classes, a parenting assessment, a psychological evaluation, and

a "Fathers in Trust" program. However, the judge properly

concluded that this favorable evidence was undermined by the

father's failure to take responsibility for his actions and

persisting violent behavior. See Adoption of Jacques, 82 Mass.

App. Ct. at 608 ("[T]he judge was entitled to consider the

evidence of [the father's] recent improvements within the

context of [his] earlier and continuing deficits"). Although

the judge did not specifically find all the favorable facts the

father raises in his brief, she was not required to make

specific findings about every piece of evidence presented where

the evidence of unfitness, for the reasons discussed above, was

10
overwhelming. See Adoption of Franklin, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 787,

799 (2021).

The father argues that numerous findings of the judge are

"not factual findings but statements of opinion without the

necessary factual analysis of the trial record to support them."

It is true that the judge's finding that the "father's

delusional disorder heightened his anxiety about the mother's

late return home" does not appear to be supported by evidence in

the record. However, the error was harmless in light of the

overwhelming evidence of his unfitness. See Adoption of Peggy,

436 Mass. 690, 702 (2002). See also Adoption of Franklin,

supra. We agree with the father that some of the statements in

the judge's "findings of fact" section appear to be legal

conclusions, but those conclusions are supported by clear and

convincing evidence and we discern no error of law or abuse of

discretion. See Adoption of Luc, 484 Mass. 139, 144 (2020);

Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. at 799.

The remainder of the father's arguments "amount to no more

than a disagreement with the judge's weighing of the evidence

and credibility determinations regarding witnesses." Adoption

of Don, 435 Mass. 158, 166-167 (2001). The father testified at

trial, and the judge was able to assess his credibility. She

found that some of his answers "simply did not make logical

11
sense" and that he "refused to answer questions that might have

cast him in a negative light." "[T]he judge's assessment of the

credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence is

entitled to deference." Adoption of Elena, 446 Mass. at 31.

Accordingly, we do not disturb the judge's "specific and

detailed [findings] . . . demonstrat[ing] that close attention

was given to the evidence." Adoption of Georgia, 433 Mass. 62,

66 (2000).

Conclusion. We conclude that the judge did not abuse her

discretion or commit a clear error of law in determining that

the father was unfit, that his unfitness was not temporary, and

that termination of his parental rights served the children's

best interests.

Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Blake, C.J.,
Meade & Tan, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: February 26, 2026.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

12