Adoption of Bodhi.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-1018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-1018

ADOPTION OF BODHI.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The father appeals from a Juvenile Court decree finding him

unfit to parent his child, Bodhi, terminating his parental

rights, and committing Bodhi to the custody of the Department of

Children and Families (department).2 The father argues that the

judge erred by failing to credit evidence of his engagement with

services and lack of domestic violence during the years

preceding the trial and by failing to evenhandedly assess the

competing placement plans. We affirm.

Background. The father was born in 1974 and has been known

to the department since about 1995. He has eleven children,

1 A pseudonym.

2The mother entered into an open adoption agreement on the first day of trial and stipulated to the termination of her parental rights. She did not appeal. including Bodhi, with six different women, and his parental

rights were terminated as to the two oldest children. The

father also did not raise any of the ten oldest children, who

are now all adults, in part because he was frequently

incarcerated.

The father has an extensive history of domestic violence

and was the defendant in twenty-two restraining orders over

three decades; in addition, a significant share of his eighty

criminal charges arose from domestic violence. The majority of

the restraining orders were filed by the father's girlfriends

over the years. During one of his most recent acts of domestic

violence, the father gave the mother two black eyes, broke her

finger, and injured her back and shoulder when she was six

months pregnant with Bodhi.

Bodhi was born in 2019. One day later, a mandated reporter

filed a report under G. L. c. 119, § 51A (51A report), alleging

neglect of Bodhi by the mother. According to the report, the

mother tested positive for marijuana upon admission to the

hospital, and Bodhi was born substance exposed. A department

social worker investigated the allegations and learned of the

father's domestic violence history. After a home visit and

interviews with the parents, the social worker deemed the

allegations in the 51A report supported, and the case opened for

services.

2 Bodhi remained in his parents' custody for the next two and

one-half years, during which time the department had ongoing

concerns about domestic violence between the parents. These

concerns came to a head at the end of 2021. That November, a

mandated reporter filed a 51A report alleging that police

responded to the parents' home after the mother called to report

a domestic incident. According to the report, the father

claimed that the mother was intoxicated and throwing objects,

whereas the mother claimed that the father was throwing objects

and had picked her up by her shoulders, pinned her against a

wall, and grabbed her neck. The report also stated that a

neighbor saw the father throw the mother to the ground. When a

department social worker visited the home a week later, the

father reported that the mother's alcohol use had increased and

that she was using "crack." The social worker then presented

the parents with a safety plan, which provided among other

things that the father would ensure that the mother would no

longer act as a sole caretaker for Bodhi. Both parents agreed

to the plan.

In December 2021 the social worker conducted an unannounced

home visit, during which she discovered that the father had

violated the safety plan by allowing the mother to be alone with

Bodhi. The social worker also saw that a bedroom door had holes

in it and was ripped off its hinges, the television was off the

3 stand, and its screen was broken. The mother reported that the

father broke these items and their cell phones out of anger.

The department removed Bodhi from the parents' care, citing,

among other things, the mother's substance abuse, the domestic

violence between the parents, and their failure to abide by the

safety plan.

Subsequently, the mother filed for a restraining order

against the father, which was granted, causing the father to

move to a hotel. In January 2022 officers responded to the

hotel after receiving a report of a man kicking in a room door.

The officers saw a damaged door frame and a crack in the

sheetrock and learned that the caller was the father's adult

son. The officers then viewed video footage, which showed the

father "shoulder checking" the door.

The father's violent behavior continued from there,

requiring further police interventions. In May 2022 officers

were dispatched to the mother's apartment for a past

disturbance. The mother told them that the father had been at

her apartment the night before and began arguing with her, that

she threw food and utensils at him, and that he retaliated by

throwing a knife, which stuck into her leg. The officers saw

that the mother's pants had blood stains and a hole and

requested a warrant for the father's arrest.

4 In September 2022 officers responded to the mother's home

after receiving complaints of noise and a "bloodied female."

They found the mother outside, upset and crying, with scratches

and red marks on her face and neck; she was having trouble

speaking but told the officers that she had an altercation with

the father. The officers entered the apartment, found the

father inside, and arrested him. After the father was taken

away, the mother told the officers that he had grabbed her head,

smashed her face into the bathroom door approximately five

times, and put her in a chokehold that made her unable to

breathe.

As a result of this incident, the father pleaded guilty to

assault and battery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous

weapon, and "strangulation/suffocation." He was incarcerated

for approximately nine months and was released in June 2023, ten

months before trial in this case. At trial the father testified

that some of the things he pleaded guilty to in September 2022

were true and some were not true, but ultimately he acknowledged

that he had strangled the mother and had stabbed her in the leg

in May 2022.

Between December 2021 and January 2024, the father did not

engage in domestic violence services, despite social workers

providing him with numerous referrals and information explaining

how to register for them. Although the father testified that he

5 completed several domestic violence courses during his

incarceration, he never provided the department with any

certificates of completion, and the judge did not credit his

testimony to the contrary. In January 2024 the father was sent

a violation of probation notice, as he still had not completed

an intimate partner program as required by the conditions of his

probation.3 The father finally began attending a domestic

violence program on January 31, 2024, a few months before trial

began and more than two years after Bodhi was removed. He had

not completed the program as of the time of trial.

Discussion. 1. Unfitness and termination. In determining

whether to terminate parental rights, a judge must first find by

clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit. See

Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005). "Despite the

moral overtones of the statutory term 'unfit,' the judge's

decision is not a moral judgment, nor is it a determination that

the parent does not love the [child]." Adoption of Lisette, 93

Mass. App. Ct. 284, 285 n.2 (2018). Instead, "[t]he inquiry is

whether the parent's deficiencies 'place the child at serious

risk of peril from abuse, neglect, or other activity harmful to

the child.'" Adoption of Olivette, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 141, 157

3 The father was found in violation of his probation on April 3, 2024, and sentencing was scheduled for October 2, 2024, a couple months after trial ended in this case.

6 (2011), quoting Care & Protection of Bruce, 44 Mass. App. Ct.

758, 761 (1998).

Here, the undisputed evidence of the father's history of

domestic violence supports the judge's finding of unfitness.

The judge's subsidiary findings, which the father does not

challenge on appeal, establish that the father committed violent

acts against the mother as part of a longstanding pattern, which

created a hostile home environment rife with domestic abuse.

This abuse occurred when the mother was pregnant with Bodhi and

continued during the time Bodhi lived with the father. The

department eventually removed Bodhi because of ongoing domestic

violence between the parents and because they had violated the

safety plan that both had agreed to. Even after Bodhi's

removal, the father continued to commit violent acts against the

mother, including throwing a knife at her, smashing her face

into a door, and putting her in a chokehold. In addition, the

judge found that the father was often aggressive and threatening

toward department social workers. For example, during one home

visit, the father became angry and told the worker, "You're the

reason social workers get killed."

As the judge further found, the father, despite admitting

to some of his violent acts, never took full responsibility for

his conduct. The father failed to engage in domestic violence

services for over two years, not starting them until a few

7 months before trial, and at trial he claimed that most of the

restraining orders against him arose from verbal altercations,

which the judge did not credit. The father also claimed that

Bodhi never witnessed any of the domestic violence and that the

father had benefited or changed from engagement in services,

which again the judge did not credit. The father's long history

of domestic violence, coupled with his failure to adequately

engage in or benefit from services and his efforts to minimize

his behavior and deny the impact of domestic violence on Bodhi,

clearly and convincingly establish his unfitness. See Adoption

of Yvonne, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 574, 577-578 (2021).

We are unpersuaded by the father's argument that the judge

erred by not giving more weight to the father's engagement in

some services and the absence of domestic violence committed by

him in recent years. The judge acknowledged that the father

completed some of his action plan tasks, such as meeting with

the department each month, signing information release forms,

engaging in individual therapy, completing a six-week parenting

course, and attending all meetings and court hearings pertaining

to Bodhi. But where domestic violence is the central issue in

the case, the judge was justified in concluding that the

father's failure to complete any domestic violence courses and

his failure to benefit from some classes he did take outweighed

his completion of these other action plan tasks. See Adoption

8 of Ulrich, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 677 (2019). Furthermore, to

the extent the father is arguing that the evidence of domestic

violence was stale, we disagree. The father was not released

from incarceration until ten months before trial, did not

complete a domestic violence program after his release even

though it was required by probation, and continued to deny and

minimize his behavior at trial. Thus, rather than being stale,

the evidence had continuing vitality. See Adoption of Flavia,

104 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 49 (2024).

For the same reasons, the judge did not err in concluding

that termination of the father's parental rights would be in

Bodhi's best interests. "The 'best interests of the child'

standard requires the trial judge to make a discretionary

decision based on her experience and judgment, and will not be

overturned unless it amounts to an abuse of discretion or a

clear error of law." Adoption of Garret, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 664,

675 (2018). Here, the judge found that the father's failure to

meaningfully address his history of domestic violence and

criminal activity established that his unfitness would continue

undiminished into the future, warranting termination of his

parental rights. This was not an abuse of discretion. See

Adoption of Breck, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 652, 661 (2025).

2. Placement plan. The department's proposed placement

plan was adoption by Bodhi's preadoptive parents, which the

9 judge found would be in Bodhi's best interests. The father

argues that this was error because the judge did not

evenhandedly assess the father's alternative plan, which was for

Bodhi to live with his paternal grandmother (grandmother). We

disagree.

As an initial matter, the father's argument is waived

because he did not actually propose a placement plan at trial.

See Adoption of Jacob, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 270-271 (2021)

("Ordinarily, a party is not entitled to present an argument on

appeal on an issue not presented in the court below" [citation

omitted]). Instead, the father and the grandmother both

testified that their desired result was for Bodhi and the father

to be reunified and live together in the grandmother's home,

with the grandmother serving as a support. Neither the father

nor the grandmother testified that she was willing or able to

provide permanency for Bodhi.

Even setting aside the waiver, moreover, the father's

argument would not succeed. "In choosing among placement plans,

it falls to the sound discretion of the trial judge to determine

what is in the best interests of the child, and our review on

appeal is one of 'substantial deference.'" Adoption of Bianca,

91 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 434 (2017), quoting Adoption of Hugo, 428

Mass. 219, 225 (1998), cert. denied sub nom. Hugo P. v. George

P., 527 U.S. 1034 (1999). By the time of trial, Bodhi was five

10 years old and had lived for a year with the preadoptive family.

The judge found that during this year Bodhi formed a strong

connection with the family, which consisted of the parents and

their six year old daughter. Bodhi called the parents "mama"

and "dada" and enjoyed playing with them and his foster sister.

The judge found that the preadoptive parents could meet Bodhi's

needs.

In contrast, the judge found that the grandmother's "work

schedule has not allowed her to meet all [of Bodhi's] needs" and

that she was "therefore not a viable placement option." Bodhi

lived with the grandmother for the six months following his

removal from the parents' custody and one night in departmental

foster care. Eventually, however, the department had to

transition Bodhi out of the grandmother's home because her

sister-in-law, who often cared for Bodhi when the grandmother

was away at work, was no longer able to assist. The

grandmother's schedule had not changed by the time of trial, and

she did not explain in concrete terms who would be caring for

Bodhi in her absence. In addition, the judge found it

concerning that the grandmother believed that the father was

wrongfully imprisoned, that he had never assaulted the mother or

any other women, and that he was capable of parenting Bodhi. In

light of this evidence, the judge did not abuse her discretion

in determining that the grandmother was not a viable placement

11 option and that the department's plan for adoption by the

preadoptive parents would be in Bodhi's best interests.

Decree affirmed.

By the Court (Henry, Shin & Toone, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: May 8, 2026.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.