ADOPTION OF UTAH (And Two Companion Cases).

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 25-P-0127
• Status: Unpublished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-127

ADOPTION OF UTAH (and two companion cases 1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The father appeals from portions of three decrees entered

in the Juvenile Court declining to order postadoption visitation

between the father and his three children. Concluding that the

judge acted within her discretion in ordering that the

preadoptive parents determine visitation, we affirm. 2

Background. The mother and the father have three children

together, who were born in 2015, 2017, and 2019, respectively.

The mother is from Puerto Rico and her parents, who are the

1Adoption of Brendan and Adoption of Elise. The children's names are pseudonyms.

2The judge also issued orders leaving posttermination visitation between the parents and the children to the discretion of the Department of Children and Families. The father does not challenge this portion of the decrees. Neither the mother nor the children appealed any portion of the decrees. After argument was scheduled, the children filed a motion to join in the father's brief, which was allowed. preadoptive parents, continue to reside there. The Department

of Children and Families (DCF) first became involved with the

family in 2015 after a G. L. c. 119, § 51A report (51A report)

was filed alleging that the father struck the mother in the face

in the presence of the mother's oldest child. 3 During the

investigation, the mother and the father denied a history of

domestic violence and the mother said that the mark on her face

was a "hickie." The investigation deemed the allegations

supported. Over the next four years, at least twelve 51A

reports were filed regarding the family, many of which involved

domestic violence. In 2016, the father was incarcerated after

assaulting the mother. DCF was awarded custody of the two older

children, Utah and Brendan, in October 2018 after it received

another 51A report regarding domestic violence between the

mother and the father. DCF was awarded custody of the youngest

child, Elise, in 2019 when a DCF worker found drugs in the

child's diaper bag.

In 2018 and 2019 the mother and the father had in-person

visitation supervised by DCF. The judge found the father was

attentive and cooperative during visits. In 2020, the children

were placed with the preadoptive parents in Puerto Rico, and the

3 That child was placed with her biological father in 2018 and dismissed from the care and protection petition. In a related proceeding, a judge granted full custody of the child to her father. Utah, Brendan, and Elise have a different father.

2 visits became virtual, scheduled at prearranged times. The

preadoptive parents, DCF, and the father worked together and

utilized Zoom at prearranged times. In January, 2021, virtual

visitation between the father and the children stopped.

While the children were in DCF custody, reunification was

hampered due, in part, to the parents' continual denial or

minimization of the domestic violence history. DCF developed

service plans for both the mother and the father based on the

concerns that the parents were unable to maintain an environment

for the children free of domestic violence. The judge found

that the father denied a history of violence despite the

multiple reports of physical altercations with the mother and

past restraining orders from neighbors and the mother of his

older children. The father claimed the mother fabricated the

allegations of domestic violence, and he had limited insight

into the impact of the domestic violence on his ability to

parent the children. The father did not consistently engage in

the recommended individual counseling, was terminated from a

program intended for perpetrators of domestic violence, and did

not complete a substance abuse evaluation despite testifying

that he purchased heroin "on the street" and used marijuana

daily to self-medicate depressive symptoms.

Discussion. The father does not challenge the unfitness

finding, the termination of his parental rights, or the goal of

3 adoption for the children. He argues only that the judge erred

in finding that an order of postadoption visitation was not in

the best interests of the children. "A trial judge's decision

whether to order visitation between a child and a parent whose

parental rights have been terminated is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion." Adoption of Xarissa, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 623-

624 (2021).

"In determining whether to exercise the authority to order visitation, a judge must ask two questions: First, is visitation in the child's best interest? Second, in cases where a family is ready to adopt the child, is an order of visitation necessary to protect the child's best interest, or may decisions regarding visitation be left to the judgment of the adoptive family?"

Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 63 (2011). "[A] judicial order

of postadoption contact may be warranted where the evidence

readily points to significant, existing bonds between the child

and a biological parent," Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 563

(2000), but should enter "only if such an order on balance, is

necessary to protect the child's best interest." Adoption of

Ilona, supra at 65.

Here, in determining the best interests of the children,

the judge recognized that when the children were first in the

custody of DCF, the father had visited consistently and appeared

to have "a good bond" with them. The judge found that both

parents were able to "go with the flow" and came to visits

prepared with food and activities. When the children were

4 placed with the preadoptive parents in 2020, the visits became

virtual, and the preadoptive parents worked with DCF to schedule

the visits, which initially "were consistent and without issue."

However, as of trial in 2023, the father had not visited for

over two years. The judge found that DCF had not been able to

locate the father; his phone was off when DCF contacted him, and

he had not participated in the monthly Zoom visits. The father

denied any responsibility for the lack of visitation blaming the

time difference between the Commonwealth and Puerto Rico and the

schedules of the preadoptive parents.

Meanwhile, the children thrived in the preadoptive home and

had stability and consistency with the preadoptive parents. As

to the father, the children did not refer to him by any "common

terms for a father," using a nickname instead. The judge

considered the needs of each child separately and found that the

preadoptive parents met each child's physical and special needs.

The judge also considered that the disruption in visits "seemed

to stem" from the preadoptive parents' concerns regarding the

trauma the children experienced while in the care of their

parents. The judge recognized that the preadoptive parents were

attuned to the children and were willing to support and schedule

visitation, but that DCF could not locate the father. 4 We

4 The inference drawn by the judge from the social worker's testimony, that the preadoptive parents were willing to

5 conclude that the judge's findings were amply supported by the

record, and she did not abuse her discretion in finding that it

was not in the best interests of the children for an order of

visitation to enter and that the issue of visitation should be

left to the sound judgment of the preadoptive parents.

Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Massing & Allen, JJ. 5),

Clerk

Entered: December 1, 2025.

facilitate Zoom visitation, is not clearly erroneous. See Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 799 (1993).

5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.