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

23-P-1368

ADOPTION OF DAVINA (and a companion case1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following trial in the Juvenile Court, the judge terminated 

the father's parental rights to his children, Davina and 

Michael.2 The judge declined the father's request to enter an 

order for visitation, and the father appeals. We affirm.

We review a judge's decision not to order posttermination 

or postadoption visitation with a biological parent for abuse of 

discretion. See Adoption of Xarissa, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 

623-624 (2021). In determining whether such visitation is in a

child's best interests, the judge must consider whether the 

1 Adoption of Michael. The children's names are pseudonyms.

2 After the decrees entered, the mother agreed to a 

stipulation for judgment terminating her parental rights. The 

stipulation for judgment contemplated an open adoption agreement 

and also referenced a posttermination contact agreement 

providing the mother with visitation. She is not a party to 

this appeal. 
2

child has a "significant, existing bond with the biological 

parent" and whether the child "has formed strong, nurturing 

bonds" with the preadoptive family. Adoption of Ilona, 459 

Mass. 53, 63-64 (2011), quoting Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 

563 (2000). The judge should also weigh "considerations beyond 

bonding," Adoption of Rico, 453 Mass. 749, 759 (2009), including 

"other circumstances of the actual personal relationship of the 

child and the biological parent," id., quoting Adoption of Vito, 

supra at 562. Only if postadoption visitation with the 

biological parent is in the child's best interests does the 

judge proceed to evaluate whether entering an order instead of 

leaving visitation to the discretion of the adoptive family is 

necessary to protect the child's best interests. See Adoption 

of Ilona, supra at 65-66; Adoption of Vito, supra at 563. 

The record and the judge's findings amply support her

determination that posttermination and postadoption visitation 

with the father would not be in either child's best interests.3 

The father lived with the older child, Davina, for the first 

3 We are not persuaded by the father's contentions that the 

judge ignored evidence or that her reasons for denying the 

father's visitation request were not sufficiently detailed. See 

Adoption of West, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 247 (2020) ("When a 

trial judge decides not to order visitation, . . . [s]he is not 

required to make extensive findings if [s]he has already made 

specific and detailed findings regarding the child's best 

interests and the determination of parental unfitness" [citation 

omitted]).
3

year of her life, but thereafter, the maternal great-grandmother 

became her legal guardian and primary caregiver. The Department 

of Children and Families (department) took custody of Michael

when he was less than two months old. 

Since the department removed the children in 2021, the 

father has not consistently attended or confirmed virtual or inperson visits with them. The father saw the children in person

only twice in three years, with large gaps between both virtual 

and in-person visits. Both children were negatively affected by 

the father's behavior during visits. Davina expressed distress 

and Michael ran away and refused to stay present during visits. 

The father asks us to look beyond his lack of significant 

bonds with the children and argues that children may still 

benefit from contact with their birth parents even if they have 

not already formed a strong bond. While we appreciate the 

father's concern for the children and his desire for them to 

know him, an order requiring posttermination or postadoption 

contact is unwarranted here. The children have been living with 

their preadoptive family since January 2021, when Davina was 

four years old and Michael was two months old. Both children 

have "formed strong, nurturing bonds" with the preadoptive 

parents, and there is "little or no evidence of a significant, 

existing bond with the biological parent." Adoption of Vito, 
4

431 Mass. at 563. Visitation with the father is unnecessary to 

assist the children in negotiating their transition to adoption. 

See id. at 564-565. 

The father argues that visitation is warranted because of

several other circumstances, including that (1) while the 

children's mother has similar deficiencies in her history, the 

judge granted her posttermination visitation; (2) the mother was

provided the opportunity for an open adoption after the decrees 

entered, see note 2, supra; (3) the father and mother remain 

married; (4) the father's sporadic visitation was the result of

limitations imposed on him by various treatment facilities; and 

(5) the preadoptive family is not supportive of contact with the 

father. 

The first three circumstances concern the fairness of the 

order to the father and are unrelated to the question of the 

children's best interests. See Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. at 

562 ("an order for postadoption contact is grounded in the overall best interests of the child, based on emotional bonding and 

other circumstances of the actual personal relationship of the 

child and the biological parent, not in the rights of the 

biological parent nor the legal consequences of their natural 

relation"). The fourth circumstance, suggesting that the father

would have maintained greater contact with the children if not 
5

for the "limitations imposed by the various facilities at which 

he sought treatment," is belied by the record. When the 

father's ability to see the children was not limited by 

incarceration or treatment facilities, he had minimal contact 

with the department and no contact with the children. With 

respect to the fifth circumstance, the judge found that the

preadoptive parents would in fact be open to ongoing involvement 

between the biological parents and the children. 

The record substantially supports the judge's conclusion 

that posttermination and postadoption contact between the father 

and children would not be in the children's best interests. The 

judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the father's 

request for a visitation order.

Decrees affirmed.

By the Court (Massing, Hand & 

Smyth, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: September 16, 2024.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.