Care and Protection of Jamison (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-028-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11452 CARE AND PROTECTION OF JAMISON. Franklin‑Hampshire. September 4, 2013. ‑ February 20, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Minor, Care and protection, Visitation rights. Jurisdiction, Care and protection of minor, Juvenile Court. Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction. Guardian. Evidence, Unavailable witness, Expert opinion. Witness, Child, Unavailability, Expert, Psychiatric examination, Psychologist. Petition filed in the Franklin and Hampshire Counties Division of the Juvenile Court Department on September 28, 2007. A motion for sibling visitation, filed on April 15, 2011, was heard by James G. Collins, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Ann Balmelli O’Connor, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the siblings of Jamison. Margaret M. Geary for the guardians. Beth M. Nussbaum for Jamison. Lynne M. Murphy for Department of Children and Families. Cara M. Cheyette for the mother. LENK, J. We are called upon in this case to decide, first, whether the Juvenile Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitions for sibling visitation pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 26B (b), where the petitioning child is in State custody and his siblings are wards in the custody of legal guardians, and, second, whether the presumption of validity afforded parental decisions regarding grandparent visitation pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 39D, recognized in Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 657-658 (2002) (Blixt), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003), applies also to the decisions of fit guardians regarding sibling visitation. Finally, we must decide whether the judge abused his discretion when mandating the visitation sought by the petitioning sibling. In October, 2005, nine year old Jamison and three of his siblings — Christopher, then fifteen, Fergus, then five, and Rosalie, then four — became the wards of their maternal aunt, Darlene, and her spouse, Dorothy (guardians).[1] The guardians voluntarily terminated their guardianship of Jamison in October, 2007, and, in April, 2008, he was placed in the permanent custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF).[2] In April, 2011, Jamison petitioned the Juvenile Court for visitation with Fergus and Rosalie pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 26B (b). After finding that visitation would be in the best interests of all three children, a Juvenile Court judge ordered supervised visitation […]