Title: In re Care & Protection of a Minor

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13385 
 
CARE AND PROTECTION OF A MINOR. 
 
 
April 14, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, the father of a child who was the subject 
of a care and protection petition in the Juvenile Court, appeals 
from a judgment of a single justice of this court dismissing as 
moot his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.  
 
 
 
The Department of Children and Families filed a care and 
protection petition pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 24, in September 
2022, after the child tested positive at birth for several 
drugs.  Temporary custody was granted to the father shortly 
thereafter.  The father and mother, who are not married, 
currently reside together, and the order of temporary custody 
included several conditions, including that the mother not 
reside with the father and child, and that the father ensure 
that the mother is not under the influence of any substance 
while visiting with the child.  The father subsequently filed a 
motion to dismiss the petition for temporary custody, 
essentially on the basis that there had been, and was, no need 
for judicial intervention.  In his view, the department’s filing 
a care and protection petition was "inappropriate" because there 
were no protective concerns about the father.  More 
specifically, he argued that the petition did not meet the 
requirements of G. L. c. 119, § 24, because the child has a 
lawful parent –- the father -– who is fit, ready and willing to 
care for the child.  After a hearing, a judge in the Juvenile 
Court maintained the temporary custody order and denied the 
motion to dismiss without prejudice.   
 
2 
 
 
The father then filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, 
§ 118, first par., with a single justice of the Appeals Court.  
The single justice denied the petition, declining to exercise 
her discretion to report the judge's order denying the motion to 
dismiss to a panel of the Appeals Court.  The father's G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court followed.  While the 
petition was pending there, the care and protection case was 
dismissed in the Juvenile Court, in December 2022.  On that 
basis, the single justice dismissed the G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition as moot. 
 
 
The father now appeals from that dismissal.  He recognizes 
that the case is moot, but he argues that it raises an important 
issue regarding the construction of G. L. c. 119, § 24, that is 
capable of repetition yet evading review.  It is certainly true 
that "this court (and its single justices) can, as a matter of 
discretion, decide issues that are moot when they are capable of 
repetition yet evading review."  Vazquez v. Superintendent, 
Mass. Correctional Inst., Norfolk, 484 Mass. 1058, 1058 (2020), 
citing Lockhart v. Attorney Gen., 390 Mass. 780, 782-783 (1984).  
In this case, the single justice exercised her discretion not to 
do so.  Where the issue became moot while the father's G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition was pending before the single justice, 
"the only issue that is before us [in the father's appeal] . . . 
is whether the single justice abused her discretion in 
dismissing the petition on the basis that it was moot and in 
choosing not to decide the issues."  Vazquez, supra.  This is 
not, in other words, a case where the single justice decided the 
issue, the case became moot while an appeal from that decision 
was pending in the full court, and the father is asking that the 
full court exercise its discretion to consider the appeal 
notwithstanding the fact that it is moot.  See id. at 1058-1059.  
We find no abuse of discretion.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
1 We note as well that the father had, and pursued, an 
adequate alternative remedy -- filing a petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., with a single justice of the 
Appeals Court.  That he did not receive the relief he sought 
does not render that avenue for relief inadequate; nor does it 
entitle the father to pursue additional relief pursuant to G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  See Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 
1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie 
where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). 
3 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Cara M. Cheyette for the petitioner. 
 
James Petersen for the Department of Children and Families.