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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 […]
Care and Protection of Yetta (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-003-14)
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 12‑P‑1540 Appeals Court CARE AND PROTECTION OF YETTA.[1] No. 12‑P‑1540. Middlesex. April 10, 2013. ‑ January 16, 2014. Present: Trainor, Graham, & Wolohojian, JJ. Parent and Child, Care and protection of minor, Custody of minor. Minor, Care and protection, Custody. Practice, Civil, Care and protection proceeding, Findings by judge. Petition filed in the Middlesex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on January 12, 2010. The case was heard by Kenneth J. King, J. David J. Cohen, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the father. Diana S. Spanos for the mother. Jocelyn Thomsen for the children. Brian R. Pariser for Department of Children and Families. GRAHAM, J. The Department of Children and Families (department) filed a petition under G. L. c. 119, § 24, alleging that five children, Eve, Yetta, Sam, Deborah, and Ted, were in need of care and protection. The petition was based on the testimony of the eldest child, Eve, that she had been sexually abused by her step-father (father). After an eight-day trial in the Juvenile Court, the judge found that the department had failed to prove that the father had sexually abused any of the children but concluded, nonetheless, that the children were in need of care and protection. Pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 26, the judge committed Eve to the custody of the department, but permitted the other four children (children) to remain in the custody of the parents, subject to certain enumerated conditions. On appeal, the father, mother, and children argue that the evidence and the judge’s subsidiary findings do not adequately support a finding of parental unfitness; that the judge exceeded his authority by imposing conditions on the parents’ custody of the children without an explicit finding that the parents were unfit; and that certain findings made by the judge are clearly erroneous. We agree that the findings are insufficient to support a conclusion that the parents are unfit and, accordingly, vacate the judgment and order. Background. The mother is the biological parent of six children: Gail (born in 1990, who was an adult at the time the petition was filed); Eve (born in 1996); Yetta (born in 2000); Sam (born in 2004); Deborah (born in 2006); and Ted (born in 2010). The father is the biological parent of Sam, Deborah, […]
Connecting Marathon Victims to Special Care
A new collaborative effort by city and state government will help connect victims and their families with trained specialists. South End Patch News
Boston Strangler Victim’s Family: “People Really Did Care”
As police announced Thursday morning their "99.9 percent" certainty that suspected Boston Strangler Albert DeSalvo was responsible for the death of 19-year-old Beacon-Hill resident Mary Sullivan in 1964, her family shared their overwhelming relief South End Patch News
Catwalk for BMC Cancer Care
Boston Medical Center presented the second annual fashion show, Catwalk for BMC Cancer Care, in partnership with Open HeARTS, Inc. The event, which was emceed by W South End Patch News