L.H. v. Department of Children and Families.

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-1381

L.H.

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, L.H., appeals from a Superior Court judgment

on the pleadings on her complaint for judicial review of an

administrative decision of the Department of Children and

Families (department). We affirm.

Following an investigation, the department supported a

report filed under G. L. c. 51A, removed three foster children

from the plaintiff's home, and revoked the plaintiff's foster

care license. A hearing officer affirmed the decisions of the

department. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the hearing

officer's decision in the Superior Court. See G. L. c. 30A,

§ 14 (1). Appealing from an adverse judgment, the plaintiff

challenges only the revocation of her license and contends that the hearing officer's findings were not supported by substantial

evidence, see Cobble v. Commissioner of Dep't of Social Servs.,

430 Mass. 385, 390 (1999), and that "complete revocation of her

foster care license is too harsh of a remedy."

Contrary to the plaintiff's claims, she has not met her

heavy burden of demonstrating that the department's decision is

unsupported by substantial evidence or that the remedy is

unlawful. See O'Malley v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 104

Mass. App. Ct. 778, 780 (2024). The administrative record

included the following evidence credited by the hearing officer:

the plaintiff cared for three female foster children (ages

fourteen, thirteen, and seven); the plaintiff failed to notify

the department that her adult son (age thirty-five) frequently

visited the home; and while in the plaintiff's home the son

rubbed his hand on the thirteen year old's face and stomach,

told her she was beautiful, and tried to kiss her. After

reviewing all the evidence and making credibility findings, the

department concluded that the plaintiff failed to inform the

department of "adults visiting the home so the agency could

properly ensure the safety of the children" and "failed to

provide minimally adequate supervision to the child." Giving

"great deference" to the department's determination of whether

particular circumstances constitute minimally adequate

supervision, Lindsay v. Dep't of Social Servs., 439 Mass. 789,

2 799 (2003), we conclude that the evidence constituted reasonable

cause to support the department's decision and remedy. See,

e.g., 110 Code Mass. Regs. § 7.113B (2009) (revocation of foster

care license).

We disagree with the plaintiff's contention that she was

just an unwitting bystander to the events that transpired.

There was evidence at the fair hearing supporting the

plaintiff's argument that she had "zero reason" to believe that

the foster children faced any risk from her son, whom she

trusted completely and allowed to supervise the children during

brief periods when she rested nearby in another room. Without

recounting all of the details, we note that the hearing officer

carefully considered this evidence and the plaintiff's arguments

and declined to credit the testimony of the plaintiff and her

son in key respects. We defer to these credibility

determinations. See Andrews v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 446 Mass.

611, 616 (2006).

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Hand & Hodgens, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: July 20, 2026.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.