Father’s Care-and-Protection Petition Survives Dismissal: Care and Protection of Prince (AC 25-P-1124, Sept. 11, 2026)

A father trying to protect his young child from what he believed was a dangerous home environment found himself caught between two courts. He had been litigating custody in Probate and Family Court for nearly four years. When his concerns escalated after an alleged violent incident involving the child’s mother, he filed an emergency motion there. When that motion stalled, he turned to the Juvenile Court and filed a care-and-protection petition. The Department of Children and Families moved to dismiss, arguing that the Probate judge was already handling the case and that the father was engaging in forum shopping. The Juvenile Court judge agreed and dismissed the petition. The Appeals Court reversed, holding that the two statutory schemes serve distinct purposes and that a parent may invoke the Juvenile Court’s protective jurisdiction even when a custody dispute is pending elsewhere.

The Facts

The father and mother were never married. The father filed a parentage complaint in October 2021. At the time of the events in this case, the mother had custody of Prince, and the father had supervised visits. The parties had filed numerous motions over the years.

On the evening of May 5, 2025, an incident occurred at the mother’s home while Prince was present. The mother’s fourteen-year-old daughter from another relationship reported that the mother had her hands around the daughter’s neck, pushed her to the floor, pulled her down by her hair, and dragged her across the floor. The daughter also said the mother attacked the mother’s stepfather, who was covered in blood and had bite marks on his body and face. The daughter described the mother as slurring her words and appearing intoxicated, with the smell of alcohol on her breath. Prince woke up during the incident and began crying. Police arrested the mother.

The Department of Children and Families initiated an emergency response the next day. Several reports under G. L. c. 119, § 51A, were filed alleging neglect of Prince and physical abuse of the daughter. After an investigation, the department supported the allegations.

Two Courts, One Child

On May 6, 2025, the same day the department began its investigation, the father filed an emergency motion in the parentage case seeking legal and physical custody of Prince. The Probate and Family Court judge held a hearing on May 7, 2025, but no order had issued by early July.

On July 2, 2025, the father filed a care-and-protection petition in Juvenile Court. In his affidavit, he set forth the same allegations he had presented to the Probate judge and stated that he had filed multiple motions for emergency custody that had not been heard. A Juvenile Court judge held an emergency custody hearing the same day, reviewed the petition, did not remove Prince from the mother’s custody, appointed counsel for all parties, and continued the case to July 9 for a preliminary hearing.

At the July 9 hearing, a different judge presided. The department moved orally to dismiss the father’s petition. The department told the judge it had not found any credible evidence that Prince was suffering from physical abuse. The department explained that the parties were involved in a heavily litigated matter in Probate Court, that a trial in that court had already commenced, and that the judge had presided over two days of trial and scheduled a third day in August to determine custody. The department argued that the father filed the Juvenile Court petition after the Probate judge had issued a gatekeeping order requiring both parties to obtain prior written permission before making further filings. The department characterized the father’s action as forum shopping and an attempt to circumvent the Probate Court action. The department maintained that the Probate judge, having heard the case for over four years and being mid-trial, was in the best position to determine custody and any safety concerns. The mother and the child’s counsel supported the motion to dismiss.

The father’s counsel opposed the motion and argued for an evidentiary hearing. The judge ruled from the bench that the Probate Court judge who had been hearing the case was in a better position to make determinations, that the substance of the petition had been addressed in the request for emergency orders, and dismissed the petition. The father appealed.

What the Court Held

The Appeals Court vacated the dismissal. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Tan held that G. L. c. 119, § 24, creates a distinct action that involves different considerations and provides remedies different from those available in Probate and Family Court.

The court began with a detailed review of the two statutory frameworks. Care-and-protection proceedings under G. L. c. 119, §§ 24-26, may be initiated by any person and are aimed at determining whether government intervention is necessary for the protection of a child. If a child is adjudicated in need of care and protection, a Juvenile Court judge has several dispositional options, including committing the child to DCF, permitting the child to remain with a parent under supervision, transferring custody to another person or agency, ordering appropriate medical care, or dispensing with consent to adoption.

In contrast, G. L. c. 209C governs parentage, child support, and custody of nonmarital children between the parents. A Probate and Family Court judge in a c. 209C proceeding is guided by the best interests of the child and has considerable freedom to identify and weigh pertinent factors. Although a Probate judge may grant custody to the department or to a third person in extreme circumstances, it is rare. Nothing requires a Probate judge even to consider such options, whereas determining whether to grant custody to the department is usually the central focus of a Juvenile Court judge in a care-and-protection proceeding.

Different Tools for Different Jobs

The court emphasized the practical differences between the two forums. A Probate judge does not have the authority to permit a child to remain with a parent under supervision as directed by the court or to order appropriate physical care including medical or dental care. A Probate judge does not have the ready ability to obtain departmental services to help a family address parental deficits that may be remedied without removal. A Juvenile Court judge may also appoint a court investigator qualified under G. L. c. 119, § 21A, to examine the conditions affecting the child and produce a report, something not available in a c. 209C proceeding.

The court acknowledged the judge’s concern about forum shopping and the desire to defer to the Probate judge who had been handling the case for years. But the court held that because a care-and-protection proceeding is distinct in nature and provides different remedies, the father’s petition was properly before the Juvenile Court.

The court noted that judges may request interdepartmental transfer of a case if the cases involve the same parties or issues and consolidating them would promote judicial economy. If the Juvenile Court action were transferred to the Probate judge, that judge would then have the statutory authority and options normally available only to a Juvenile Court judge.

What Happens Next

On remand, the Juvenile Court judge must hold an evidentiary hearing on the father’s petition. The judge might conclude that temporarily removing custody from the mother is unwarranted. Loss of custody is not a predetermined outcome under the statute. Or the judge might conclude that the evidence meets one of the four enumerated factors in § 24, warranting continued oversight and perhaps the appointment of a court investigator to examine the conditions affecting Prince.

The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petition and did not reach the father’s argument that the judge erred in permitting the department to argue its oral motion without prior written notice, in violation of Juvenile Court Rule 7(C).

Why It Matters

The decision clarifies that a parent’s ability to invoke the Juvenile Court’s protective jurisdiction is not foreclosed by a pending custody dispute in another court. The two proceedings serve different purposes. A Probate and Family Court custody case allocates parental rights between two parents. A care-and-protection case determines whether the state must intervene to protect a child. The remedies available in Juvenile Court, including supervision by DCF and investigative resources, are not duplicative of those available in Probate Court.

The ruling does not invite frivolous parallel litigation. A parent who files a care-and-protection petition invites state intervention into the family when there may otherwise have been none. And judges retain the ability to consolidate related cases through interdepartmental transfer. But when a parent genuinely believes a child is in danger and the remedies available in Probate Court are inadequate, the Juvenile Court door remains open.

Read the full opinion: Care and Protection of Prince (AC-25-P-1124, September 11, 2026).