Adoption of Vito - 431 Mass. 550, 728 N.E.2d 292 (2000)

Rule:

Where the child has formed strong, nurturing bonds with his pre-adoptive family, and there is little or no evidence of a significant, existing bond with the biological parent, judicial exercise of equitable power to require post-adoption contact would usually be unwarranted. On the other hand, a judicial order for post-adoption contact may be warranted where the evidence readily points to significant, existing bonds between the child and a biological parent, such that a court order abruptly disrupting that relationship would run counter to the child's best interests.

Facts:

Petitioner, Department of Social Services, filed a petition to dispense with parental consent for adoption proceeding. The trial judge concluded that the mother was unfit to parent, but denied the department's request to dispense with parental consent and found that the department's adoption plan was not in the child's best interest because it did not provide for significant post-adoption contact with the child's mother and biological siblings.

Issue:

Did the trial judge err in holding that post-adoption contact was required in this case?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Vacating the order, denying the petition to dispense with parental consent to the adoption and remanding, the court held the judge was mandated to act in the child's best interests during termination and adoption proceedings. Further, limited post-adoption contact is allowed when there is a compelling reason for the judge to conclude that contact with a biological parent is currently in the best interests of the child. The trial judge's determination that post-adoption contact was required was clearly erroneous as the evidence clearly revealed a strong bond to the pre-adoptive family, the only family the child had ever known, and little to no attachment by him to his biological mother or his biological siblings.