Magazu, et al. v. Department of Children and Families (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-001-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11864 GREGORY T. MAGAZU & another[1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. Worcester. September 10, 2015. – January 4, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Department of Children & Families. Adoption, Foster parents. Constitutional Law, Freedom of religion. Religion. Administrative Law, Substantial evidence. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 25, 2013. The case was heard by Brian A. Davis, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. David P. Bodanza (Amanda M. Mastalerz with him) for the plaintiffs. Annapurna Balakrishna, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. SPINA, J. Gregory T. Magazu and his wife, Melanie, appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed their appeal from a final decision of the Department of Children and Families (department) denying their application to become foster and preadoptive parents because of their use of corporal punishment as a form of discipline in their home. The Magazus argue that the department’s decision is inconsistent with its regulations, is arbitrary and capricious, and is not supported by substantial evidence where they were willing to agree not to use corporal punishment on a foster child. They also contend that, because physical discipline is an integral aspect of their Christian faith, the department’s decision impermissibly infringes on their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the department’s decision to deny the Magazus’ application is based on a reasonable interpretation of its enabling legislation and related regulations, is not arbitrary or capricious, and is supported by substantial evidence. We also conclude that although the department’s decision imposes a substantial burden on the Magazus’ sincerely held religious beliefs, this burden is outweighed by the department’s compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional well-being of foster children. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 1. Statutory and regulatory framework. We begin with an overview of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions that govern the foster care proceedings in this case. The Legislature has vested the department with the authority to provide substitute care for […]