Posts tagged "M.P."

Millis Public Schools v. M.P., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-023-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12384   MILLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS  vs.  M.P. & others.[1]       Norfolk.     October 2, 2017. – February 6, 2018.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.     Child Requiring Assistance.  Statute, Construction.  Words, “Wilfully.”       Petition filed in the Norfolk County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on November 30, 2016.   The case was heard by Mary M. McCallum, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Katrina McCusker Rusteika, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for M.P.     LENK, J.  The children requiring assistance (CRA) statute, G. L. c. 119, §§ 21, 39E-39I, confers jurisdiction upon the Juvenile Court to intervene in the custody arrangements of children who are, inter alia, “habitually truant,” meaning that they “willfully fail[] to attend school for more than [eight] school days in a quarter.”  G. L. c. 119, § 21.  The statute is aimed at children who exhibit “misbehavior which is not violative of any criminal statute, but which is the cause for concern that it is indicative of problems or tendencies that may eventually lead to delinquent or criminal activity.”  R.L. Ireland & P. Kilcoyne, Juvenile Law § 4.1 (2d ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017) (Ireland & Kilcoyne, Juvenile Law).  In such cases, the Juvenile Court is tasked with examining the children’s circumstances and determining whether changing or placing conditions on their custody arrangements will help deter their potentially harmful behaviors.  Id.  The party that initiates a CRA proceeding must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.  G. L. c. 119, § 39G. In this case, we decide whether a child, M.P., who has failed continually to attend school due to a combination of physical and mental disabilities, including a severe bladder condition and autism, was properly adjudicated as a child requiring assistance on the basis of a habitual truancy CRA petition filed by the Millis public schools (school district).[2] To make this determination, we must address the novel question of what it means for a child to “willfully fail[] to attend school.”  In light of the CRA statute’s goal of deterring delinquency, the statutory requirement that a child’s failure to attend school be wilful reflects legislative concern as to why the child is regularly skipping school:  it contemplates purposeful conduct by the child.  The wilfulness requirement thus necessitates judicial inquiry into and assessment […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 6, 2018 at 8:49 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

S.M., et al. v. M.P., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-089-17)

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   15-P-1047                                       Appeals Court   S.M. & another[1]  vs.  M.P. & another.[2]     No. 15-P-1047.   Bristol.     April 12, 2016. – July 14, 2017.   Present:  Green, Trainor, & Milkey, JJ.     Adoption, Visitation rights.  Minor, Adoption, Visitation rights.  Parent and Child, Adoption.  Jurisdiction, Juvenile Court, Equitable.  Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction.  Contract, Visitation rights, Condition, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.       Complaint in equity filed in the Bristol County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on July 14, 2014.   The case was heard by Siobhan E. Foley, J.     Harold N. Robertson for the defendants.     TRAINOR, J.  The plaintiffs are the biological parents of two children whom the defendants have adopted.  At the time the plaintiffs (biological parents) surrendered their parental rights, they entered into open adoption agreements with the defendants (adoptive parents) that allowed for continued visitation on certain specified terms.[3]  After the adoptive parents notified the biological parents that they were terminating visitation under the agreements, the biological parents filed an equity complaint for noncompliance with the adoption agreements, seeking their specific performance.  Following a hearing, a Juvenile Court judge ruled in the biological parents’ favor, while at the same time ordering them to discontinue a particular practice that the adoptive parents opposed.  On the adoptive parents’ appeal, we vacate the judge’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings. Background.  The older child, Abby,[4] was born on June 2, 2008.  From about two weeks after her birth until thirteen months old, she lived with a cousin.  At age thirteen months, she was placed with her now parents, who adopted her when she was about three and one-half years old.   She has diagnoses of fetal alcohol syndrome, neurosensory hearing loss, and anxiety.  She uses hearing aids; she has had physical therapy and occupational therapy services; she is followed by a speech therapist; and she has been involved with a counselor at school. The child was subject to a care and protection petition brought by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in the Bristol County Division of the Juvenile Court Department.  That matter was ultimately concluded with the biological parents and the adoptive parents executing an open adoption agreement. On January 1, 2012, the biological parents had a second child, Betsy.[5]  She was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and was […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 14, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

  • tunas4d/
  • tunas4d
  • slot5000
  • bmw4d
  • https://sangharime.com//
  • slot gacor
  • murah4d
  • slotcc
  • slot5000
  • ular4d
  • murah4d
  • slotcc
  • slot thailand

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot thailand

    slot dana

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot terpercaya

    slot terpercaya hari ini

    tunas4d

    slot demo

    slot777

    live draw hk

    slot777

    slot dana

    slot demo

    slot gacor

    slot demo

    slot777

    slot777

    slot 4d

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot demo

    slot777

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot demo

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot demo

    slot thailand

    slot demo

    slot terpercaya

    slot thailand

    slot maxwin

    slot 4d

    slot thailand

    slot qris

    akun pro thailand

    slot maxwin

    bandarxl

    naga666

    agen5000

    agen5000

    live draw hk

    toto macau

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot777

    slot demo

    slot mahjong

    slot777

    slot thailand

    slot777

    slot thailand

    slot thailand

    slot thailand

    slot777

    https://jurnal.fti.umi.ac.id/products/slotthailand/

    slot demo

    slot demo

    slot thailand

    https://slot777.smknukotacirebon.sch.id/

    slot777

    slot demo

    slot dana

    slot thailand

    agen5000

    agen5000

    harum4d

    harum4d

    dadu4d

    vilaslot

    harum4d

    slot777

    harumslot

    vilaslot

    harum4d

    harumslot

    harumslot

    harum4d


    Warning: include(/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

    Warning: include(/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

    Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/cpanel/ea-php72/root/usr/share/pear') in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

    Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

    Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function _a9cde373() on null in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php:1 Stack trace: #0 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php(1): _b9566752() #1 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-content/themes/hmtpro5/footer.php(237): include_once('/home/chelseam/...') #2 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template.php(790): require_once('/home/chelseam/...') #3 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template.php(725): load_template('/home/chelseam/...', true, Array) #4 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/general-template.php(92): locate_template(Array, true, true, Array) #5 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-content/themes/hmtpro5/archive.php(141): get_footer() #6 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include('/home/chelseam/...') #7 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1