Case Title: Guardianship of J.T.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11882

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11882 
 
GUARDIANSHIP OF J.T. 
 
 
 
May 4, 2016. 
 
 
Moot Question.  Practice, Civil, Moot case, Assistance of 
counsel.  Probate Court, Guardian. 
 
 
 
This case is before us on a report from a judge in the 
Probate and Family Court.  It concerns a guardianship of a minor 
child pursuant to G. L. c. 190B.  Specifically, the question is 
whether an indigent parent who petitions to remove a guardian 
and regain custody of her child, or to establish visitation with 
the child, has a right to counsel on those petitions.  We 
discharge the report as moot. 
 
The guardian was appointed in accordance with G. L. 
c. 190B, § 5-206, in May, 2014.  The mother, who was not 
represented by counsel, consented to the appointment of the 
guardian.  In March, 2015, the mother filed a petition to remove 
the guardian, see G. L. c. 190B, § 5-212, alleging that she was 
"presently fit and able to resume care of the child."  She also 
filed an application for the appointment of counsel to represent 
her in the removal proceeding.  Several days later she filed a 
separate petition requesting "the opportunity to have visitation 
with" the child.  (The guardianship decree had no provision for 
visitation.) 
 
 
A judge in the Probate and Family Court denied the mother's 
request for counsel and reported this interlocutory ruling to 
 
2 
the Appeals Court.  We transferred the case to this court on our 
own motion.1,2 
 
 
While the case has been pending here, the mother and the 
guardian mediated and resolved the underlying matter in the 
trial court.  A decree has been entered terminating the 
guardianship, the child has been returned to the custody of the 
mother, and a separate petition that the guardian had filed to 
adopt the child has been dismissed by agreement.3 
 
 
The judge's interlocutory report has been rendered moot by 
the resolution of the underlying case.  There is no need to 
address the issues further in this case.  Essentially the same 
issues are raised and addressed in L.B. v. Chief Justice of the 
Probate & Family Court Dep't, 474 Mass.     (2016), which we 
also decide today. 
 
                                                     
 
1 The mother has been represented in this court by appellate 
pro bono counsel.  Neither the guardian nor the child, both of 
whom were represented by counsel in the Probate and Family 
Court, has submitted a brief. 
 
2 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Committee 
for Public Counsel Services and the amicus brief submitted 
jointly by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Women's Bar 
Association of Massachusetts, Greater Boston Legal Services, 
Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts LLC, Community Legal 
Aid Services and Counseling Center, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, 
Northeast Legal Aid, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and 
the Center for Public Representation.  The Boston Bar 
Association submitted a letter stating that it endorsed the 
latter brief. 
 
 
We also acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Chief 
Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department. 
 
3 We note that the mother's mediation and settlement of her 
underlying claims in the trial court may have occurred on her 
own, and without the knowledge of her appellate counsel.  No 
suggestion is made before us that the settlement of the 
underlying case or the specific terms and conditions of the 
parties' agreement that were incorporated into the judge's final 
decree terminating the guardianship are unenforceable for any 
reason.  Any such claim, if one is to be made, can be made in a 
motion for postjudgment relief in the trial court. 
 
 
3 
 
Although the matter is moot, we have carefully considered 
the mother's brief as an amicus brief in the L.B. case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Report discharged as moot. 
 
 
 
Susan M. Finegan (Geoffrey A. Friedman & Sandra J. Badin 
with her) for the mother. 
 
Jamie Ann Sabino, Susan R. Elsen, Mary K. Ryan, & Melanie 
V. Woodward, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc., & 
others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
Andrew L. Cohen, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for 
Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted 
a brief. 
 
Jo Ann Shotwell Kaplan, Assistant Attorney General, for 
Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, amicus 
curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
Richard M. Page, Jr., for Boston Bar Association, amicus 
curiae, joined in a brief.