Adoption of Zander (and three companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-036-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑491 Appeals Court ADOPTION OF ZANDER (and three companion cases[1]). No. 12‑P‑491. Essex. December 4, 2012. ‑ February 27, 2013. Present: Kantrowitz, Katzmann, & Hanlon, JJ. Adoption, Visitation rights. Minor, Adoption, Visitation rights. Parent and Child, Adoption. Petitions filed in the Essex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on September 5, 2008. The cases were heard by Joseph F. Johnston, J. Michael S. Penta for the mother. Ann V. Crowley for Zander & others. Daniel R. Katz for the father. Timothy J. Casey, Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Children and Families. Debra Perrotta Dow for Sam. KATZMANN, J. Marjorie, Amy, Zander and Sam are siblings. They have the same biological mother. Marjorie and Zander were adopted by the biological mother’s sister and husband. Amy was adopted by the Fisher family, and Sam was adopted by the Williams family. This appeal arises from the adoption plan for Sam and from the visitation determinations by a judge of the Juvenile Court. Different parties to the adoption appeal separate aspects of the decrees: (1) Sam’s biological father and mother appeal the judge’s decision to accept the Department of Children and Families (DCF) adoption plan rather than the biological father’s plan and the judge’s decision to deny them postadoption visits with Sam; (2) Marjorie, Amy, and Zander (the three oldest children) and the mother argue that the judge did not order sufficient visitation between the above children and the mother; and (3) the three older children and the mother also argue that the judge committed error in refusing to issue an official sibling visitation schedule. We affirm in part and remand on the issue of sibling visitation between the three oldest children. Discussion. 1. Adoption plan for Sam. The biological parents argue that the judge abused his discretion when he accepted the DCF adoption plan over the biological father’s plan. In arriving at such a decision, the judge properly considered the best interests of Sam. This court may only review such a decision for abuse of discretion or clear error of law. Adoption of Hugo, 428 Mass. 219, 225 (1998), cert. denied sub nom. Hugo P. v. George P., 526 U.S. 1034 (1999). As a general matter, the trial judge is charged with evaluating each of the adoption plans. […]