Adoption of Karlotta.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1017
• Status: Unpublished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

24-P-1017

ADOPTION OF KARLOTTA.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The father appeals from a decree issued by a Juvenile Court

judge finding him unfit and terminating his parental rights to

his daughter, Karlotta. We discern no reversible error in the

exclusion of the father's witnesses as the father did not show

any prejudice. Further concluding that the trial judge properly

found that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) made

reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the father, we

affirm.

1. Background. The father has a long history of mental

health problems and has reported diagnoses of posttraumatic

stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. In

2016, the child's mother was killed, and the father seriously

1 A pseudonym. injured, in a motor vehicle accident. Starting in 2020, the

father's mental health began deteriorating as he became fixated

on his belief that his former fiancée's new boyfriend had

molested the child.

In December 2020, the father ended his therapy, against

DCF's recommendation. In May 2021, the father engaged in

erratic and threatening social media activity towards his former

fiancée, her new boyfriend, the child's maternal grandmother,

and DCF employees. That same month, the father was arrested for

violating restraining orders and briefly was committed to a

hospital by the local police. After his release the next day,

he was again arrested for posting a threatening video and

attempting to buy a firearm.

The child was placed in DCF's short-term assessment and

rapid reintegration (STARR) program the following day after

making suicidal statements and showing symptoms of trauma-

reactive behavior. The child participated in the STARR program

from May to August 2021 and was placed in a specialized foster

home upon her discharge from the program.

Following the child's removal in May 2021, the father was

offered weekly, one-hour supervised visits. The father

consistently attended these visits and positively interacted

with the child, leading to an increase in visitation in December

2 2021 to two-hour weekly visits. In January 2022, DCF permitted

unsupervised visitation. The following month, while attending

the child's therapy session, the father lost control of his

emotions when the therapist discussed the child's anxiety and

self-harming behavior. In response, DCF suspended unsupervised

visitation and, in March 2022, moved all future in-person

visitation to DCF offices.

The father's cooperation with DCF precipitously declined

during the spring and fall of 2022. Although the father met

with a therapist from May 2021 to May 2022, the therapist

discharged the father when she determined that she could not

help him reunite with the child. The father declined DCF's

referrals to two other counselling services and an anger

management group after this discharge. At that time, it had

been at least one year since the father had taken his

antidepressant medication. In July 2022, the father posted DCF

employee information and threats directed at his DCF social

worker on social media. The following month, the father posted

about a planned public protest at a DCF office with the caption,

"ITS HUNTING SEASON!!!" and, "I will make you pay." As a result

of these postings, the targeted DCF office closed on the day of

the planned protest.

3 Starting in the spring of 2022, the child exhibited

increased anxiety around visits with the father. After the

Juvenile Court judge suspended visitation between August and

October 2022, the child told a DCF social worker that the father

"is going to scream and make threats until he sees me" and that

his screaming made her feel unsafe. When in-person visitation

with police present resumed in December 2022, the child required

significant emotional support throughout visits. The child

twice refused to attend visits in 2023, once telling the DCF

social worker that she was scared to attend.

As the child's relationship with the father became

increasingly strained throughout 2022, the child began to

flourish academically and emotionally under her foster parents'

care. The child developed a mutual bond with the foster parents

and integrated well with the foster parents' family. In August

2022, DCF changed the child's goal from reunification to

adoption. In the fall of 2022, the child expressed her

preference to be adopted by her foster parents.

On December 1, 2023, the father was found unfit and his

parental rights were terminated. This appeal followed.

2. Exclusion of the father's witnesses. "Trial judges

have 'broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary

rulings,'" including the discretion "to exclude testimony of

4 witnesses whose use at trial is in bad faith or would unfairly

prejudice an opposing party." Mattoon v. Pittsfield, 56 Mass.

App. Ct. 124, 131 (2002), quoting Nally v. Volkswagen of Am.,

Inc., 405 Mass. 191, 197 (1989). In care and protection cases,

the parties are required to file written witness lists by a set

pretrial date, lists that are binding "except by court order for

good cause shown." Rule 15(A) of the Rules of the Juvenile

Court for the Care and Protection of Children (2018). We review

evidentiary decisions of the trial judge for an abuse of

discretion. See Adoption of Bea, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 416, 422

(2020). An abuse of discretion exists where the decision

"amounts to a 'clear error of judgment' that falls 'outside the

range of reasonable alternatives.'" Adoption of Talik, 92 Mass.

App. Ct. 367, 375 (2017), quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470

Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). "[W]e do not interfere with the

judge's exercise of discretion in the absence of a showing of

prejudicial error resulting from an abuse of discretion."

Billings v. GTFM, LLC, 449 Mass. 281, 296 (2007), quoting

Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., KG, 399 Mass. 790, 799 (1987).

Here, the parties all agreed to a September 1, 2023,

deadline for filing witness lists, and the pretrial memorandum

stated that the failure to comply with its stated provisions

"shall be grounds for imposition of appropriate sanctions,

5 including evidentiary restrictions." Nonetheless, the father

submitted his witness list on October 12, 2023, after the trial

had begun (though before it had progressed much). At trial,

DCF's and the child's counsel objected to the father's attempt

to call his first witness. When asked to explain his late

submission, the father's counsel offered only, "If I failed to

comply with a deadline, that was through inadvertence." The

trial judge accordingly sustained the objection, explaining that

"you failed to comply with the pretrial order. You did not file

a motion to expand time for filing. You did not file a motion

asking for additional time on or before the due date. You did

nothing other than file your pretrial memo." The trial judge

further pointed out that the trial had begun by the time of the

father's filing. In the father's subsequent motion to

reconsider, the father likewise failed to explain either his

late filing or provide a description of what his excluded

witnesses would testify to.

Regardless whether this was an appropriate use of

discretion where the witnesses in question were known to the

other parties, the father has failed to make any showing that he

was prejudiced by the absence of the witnesses. See Billings,

449 Mass. at 296. The father failed to make any offer of proof

of what his proposed witnesses would testify to and how such

6 testimony would support his case. See Letch v. Daniels, 401

Mass. 65, 70 (1987) ("purpose of an offer of proof is to show an

appellate court that the proponent had been prejudiced by the

exclusion of offered evidence").

The two witnesses cited by the father are his therapist and

the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) supervisor. In his

motion for reconsideration, the father argued that his therapist

should have been permitted to testify as her notes were

previously admitted in evidence and the father would accordingly

"wish to question her on the notes from the perspective of the

Father and not just simply from the opposition's perspective."

A review of the therapist's notes, however, reveals that they

largely offer the father's perspective as the notes document his

recounting of events in 2021 and 2022 with the therapist's

corresponding reactions. Indeed, the therapist clarified in her

discussion with the guardian ad litem (GAL) that her basis of

knowledge was limited to what the father told her. The judge

carefully considered the therapist's views and noted that the

therapist "was unaware of many important aspects of Father's

life." The father has offered no support for the proposition

that the therapist's live testimony would have provided anything

helpful that was not already in the notes and other information

in the record.

7 The father's other referenced witness, his CASA supervisor,

presents even less apparent support for the father's case at

trial. In his discussion with the GAL, the supervisor reported

that the father was unable to move past either the child's

removal in May 2021 or his belief that the child was sexually

abused. The supervisor expressed further concern that the

father would have future parental struggles given his anger

management issues. Finally, the supervisor was aware of the

father's negative treatment of DCF employees, including his

suspicion that the father slashed DCF employees' vehicles'

tires. Moreover, it was the supervisor who provided information

that precipitated a Juvenile Court judge's sua sponte order in

2022 for the father to cease disseminating confidential

information about the child, the pending case, and DCF

employees' information online.2 In sum, the father has failed to

show prejudicial error.

3. Reasonable efforts. "The department is 'required to

make reasonable efforts to strengthen and encourage the

integrity of the family before proceeding with an action

designed to sever family ties.'" Adoption of West, 97 Mass.

App. Ct. 238, 241 (2020), quoting Adoption of Lenore, 55 Mass.

2 We note that the sentiments the CASA supervisor expressed to the GAL matched those in the supervisor's reports, which were entered in evidence at trial without objection.

8 App. Ct. 275, 278 (2002). "A judge's determination that the

department made reasonable efforts will not be reversed unless

clearly erroneous." Adoption of West, supra at 242. "A finding

is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence to support it, or

when, 'although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing

court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Adoption of

Larry, 434 Mass. 456, 462 (2001), quoting Custody of Eleanor,

414 Mass. 795, 799 (1993).

Here, the record at trial supported the judge's finding

that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the father and the

child. Indeed, the evidence showed that it was the father's

general unwillingness to engage with or learn from the

recommended services that ultimately prevented reunification.

See Adoption of Gregory, 434 Mass. 117, 123 (2001), quoting

Adoption of Paula, 420 Mass. 716, 730 (1995) ("The [father's]

failure cannot be laid at the department's door"); Adoption of

Eduardo, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 278, 282 (2003). After the father

was discharged by a therapist in May 2022, he declined DCF's

referrals to two different counselling services and did not

reengage with a trauma therapist again until August 2023. The

father similarly declined DCF's referral to an anger management

group his social worker believed would help address his

9 inability to regulate his emotions. In August 2023, the father

completed a consultation with a trauma therapist but failed to

follow any of the therapist's behavioral recommendations.

Although the father testified that he accepted DCF's referral to

a different trauma therapist and was close to finishing a class

with the therapist, no evidence supported this claim.

Moreover, the evidence showed that DCF maintained

consistent communication and scheduled visits with the father

despite the father's increasing hostility towards DCF. In fact,

after the child's removal in May 2021, weekly visitation

initially increased and temporarily became unsupervised in early

2022 before the father's angry outburst caused DCF to reduce

visitation to weekly, one-hour supervised visits. This

visitation continued throughout 2022 despite the father's

threatening social media posts directed at DCF, including a post

targeting a specific DCF office with the caption, "ITS HUNTING

SEASON!!!" Accordingly, the record at trial supported the trial

10 judge's decision that DCF made reasonable efforts towards

reunification.

Decree affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Ditkoff & Hershfang, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: July 11, 2025.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.