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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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

20-P-4 Appeals Court

ADOPTION OF JACOB.1

No. 20-P-4.

Bristol. October 22, 2020. - March 1, 2021.

Present: Massing, Singh, & Grant, JJ.

Adoption, Care and protection, Dispensing with parent's consent, 

Foster parents, Standing. Parent and Child, Care and 

protection of minor, Dispensing with parent's consent to 

adoption, Custody. Minor, Care and protection, Adoption. 

Grandparent. Department of Children & Families. Practice, 

Civil, Care and protection proceeding, Adoption, 

Guardianship proceeding, Sequestration of witness.

Petitions filed in the Bristol County Division of the 

Juvenile Court Department on June 2, 2017, and September 25, 

2018. 

The cases were heard by Tracie L. Souza, J. 

Cara M. Cheyette for the mother.

William A. Comeau for the father.

Andrew Don for the grandparents.

Charles G. Levin for the child.

Brian Pariser for Department of Children and Families.

 

1 A pseudonym. 
2

MASSING, J. This multiparty appeal arises from a petition 

for care and protection that was tried in the Juvenile Court

together with a petition for guardianship. The guardianship 

petitioners, the child's paternal grandparents (grandparents), 

had temporary custody of the child when the trial began. The 

judge found the child's mother and father to be unfit and that 

the child's best interests would be served by terminating their 

parental rights and allowing the Department of Children and 

Families (department) to go forward with its plan for adoption 

by recruitment, rather than permitting the child to remain with 

the grandparents. The primary issues on appeal concern the 

judge's consideration of domestic violence in assessing the 

mother's fitness, the grandparents' exclusion from portions of 

the trial, and the suitability of the department's permanency 

plan. We affirm.

Background. Even before the child's birth, the mother and 

the father, both individually and as a couple, faced significant 

issues that would affect their fitness as parents. The mother 

struggled with her mental health, having been diagnosed with

bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 

posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from a sexual assault 

and robbery, borderline personality disorder, and severe 

generalized anxiety disorder. Although she engaged in some

mental health treatment, including counseling, she frequently 
3

misused her prescribed medications, and she "self-medicated"

with alcohol and nonprescribed substances, both while she was 

pregnant and throughout the pendency of the care and protection 

petition. 

The father faced similar mental health challenges, 

exacerbated by a history of physical injuries from his 

participation in extreme sports and numerous motor vehicle 

accidents. To treat both his mental and physical conditions, 

the father was prescribed medication, including opiates, which 

he misused. He also shared medications with the mother. The 

record is replete with evidence of the father's manic behavior 

and disorganized thinking, suggesting undiagnosed mental health 

conditions. Both parents had difficulty complying with the 

department's family action plan tasks. 

In addition, the couple's relationship was fraught with 

conflict. The father abused the mother verbally, emotionally, 

and, on a few occasions, physically. The mother made excuses 

for the father's conduct and was unwilling or unable to separate 

from him. The grandparents, for their part, minimized the 

father's abuse of the mother and the extent of his mental health 

problems, failing to recognize the danger these issues posed to 

the child's safety and well-being.

The child, Jacob, was born in May 2017 with a low 

birthweight and tetrahydrocannabinol in his urine. The mother 
4

had tested positive for morphine and Klonopin during her 

pregnancy.2 Although Jacob was discharged into his parents' 

custody, the hospital filed a report pursuant to G. L. c. 119, 

§ 51A, citing concerns about Jacob's substance exposure. The 

department conducted a home visit one day after Jacob was 

discharged from the hospital. Later that same day, the 

department sought emergency temporary custody of Jacob after the 

parents arrived, apparently intoxicated, over an hour late to an 

appointment with Jacob's pediatrician. Jacob, who was seven 

days old, was removed from his parents' custody and placed 

temporarily in the custody of the department. The grandparents 

applied to serve as Jacob's foster parents in June 2017, but 

they did not meet eligibility requirements because they kept 

unsecured firearms in their home. After Jacob spent six months 

in foster care, the judge awarded temporary custody to the

grandparents pursuant to a stipulated third-party conditional 

custody agreement. The department soon changed its permanency 

goal from reunification with the parents to adoption. 

Jacob was nearly sixteen months old when the trial on the 

care and protection petition began. The grandparents filed a

 

2 The department later obtained the mother's urine screen 

results from the period of her pregnancy. Those results were 

positive for numerous substances, including oxycodone, morphine, 

amphetamines, and antidepressants; she had prescriptions only 

for Prozac and Ativan. 
5

guardianship petition shortly before the trial. The two matters 

were tried together, but not formally consolidated, on sixteen 

nonconsecutive days over a four-month period. On the third day 

of trial, after concerns were raised about the grandfather's 

conduct in the court room, the judge allowed the department's 

motion to sequester witnesses, thereby excluding the 

grandparents from the care and protection proceedings. They

were to be allowed back into the court room for proceedings on 

their guardianship petition.3 Evidence elicited early in the 

trial suggested that the grandparents had violated the terms of 

the conditional custody agreement by permitting the father and 

the mother to have unauthorized contact with Jacob. As a 

result, the department moved, midtrial, to revoke the 

grandparents' custody. The judge took no action on the motion 

at the time of trial but modified the custody order to require

that all visits take place at a visitation center.4 

On March 26, 2019, the judge found that both the mother and 

the father were unfit, terminated their parental rights, 

 

3 We discuss the grandparents' presence and participation in 

the trial in detail below. 

4 The grandparents did not comply with the judge's revised 

order, and the judge suggested that a contempt hearing would be 

necessary. The record does not reflect that a contempt hearing 

was held, and no judgment of contempt was issued, although the 

judge did make a finding that the father's and the grandparents' 

actions "constitute[d] contempt of the [c]ourt's [o]rder." 
6

adjudicated Jacob in need of care and protection, and committed 

him to the custody of the department. The judge further found

the department's plan of adoption by recruitment to be in 

Jacob's best interests, rejecting the competing plans proposed 

by the mother, the father, and Jacob, all of which involved 

Jacob remaining in the grandparents' care. The judge dismissed 

the grandparents' guardianship petition and revoked their 

temporary custody of Jacob. These appeals followed.

Discussion. The appellants and arguments in this appeal 

are numerous. The mother contends that the judge erred in 

finding her unfit and terminating her parental rights based on 

evidence of domestic violence, substance use, and mental health

issues. The grandparents, joined by the father, the mother, and 

Jacob, appeal from the denial of their guardianship petition, 

contending that the judge erred in excluding them from the court

room during portions of the proceedings and that their exclusion

requires a new trial without a showing of prejudice.5 The father 

and Jacob argue that the department's proposed plan of adoption 

 

5 We assume without deciding that Jacob has standing to 

appeal from the denial of the grandparents' guardianship 

petition. See Guardianship of Tara, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 11, 12 

n.4 (2020), citing Matter of Angela, 445 Mass. 55, 62 (2005) 

("Although the statute's explicit grant of party status to a 

child is limited to one at least fourteen years old, G. L. 

c. 190B, § 5-206 [b] [1], it appears that this right extends to 

a younger child represented by counsel or a guardian ad litem").
7

by recruitment was inadequate, and that the judge erred in 

rejecting their competing plans of guardianship or adoption by 

the grandparents.6

1. Termination of the mother's parental rights.7 Before 

terminating parental rights, a judge must find that a parent is 

unfit to care for the child and, consequently, that the child is 

in need of care and protection. See Adoption of Virgil, 93 

Mass. App. Ct. 298, 301 (2018). The judge's fitness 

determination must be supported by "specific and detailed"

findings that demonstrate parental unfitness clearly and 

convincingly. Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 799 (1993). 

"'[P]arental unfitness' means 'grievous shortcomings or 

handicaps' that put the child's welfare 'much at hazard.'" 

Adoption of Katharine, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 28 (1997), quoting 

Petition of the New England Home for Little Wanderers to 

Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 367 Mass. 631, 646 (1975).

In ascertaining parental fitness, the judge "may consider past 

conduct to predict future ability and performance." Adoption of 

Katharine, supra at 32–33.

 

6 Although the grandparents purport to join the father and 

Jacob in arguing that the department's adoption plan was 

inadequate, they were not parties to the care and protection 

proceedings and, therefore, do not have standing to appeal from 

that aspect of the decision. 

7 The father does not challenge the judge's finding that he 

was unfit or the termination of his parental rights. 
8

a. Domestic violence. Domestic violence may imperil a 

child's physical safety and psychological development. See 

Custody of Vaughn, 422 Mass. 590, 599 (1996); Adoption of Ramon, 

41 Mass. App. Ct. 709, 714 (1996). Accordingly, evidence of 

domestic violence is relevant to a judge's determination of 

parental fitness. See Care & Protection of Lillith, 61 Mass. 

App. Ct. 132, 139 (2004). Where the evidence raises concerns 

regarding domestic violence, a judge must "make detailed and 

comprehensive findings on domestic violence when making custody 

determinations." Id., citing Custody of Vaughn, supra at 599. 

The judge found that domestic violence "permeated" the 

mother's relationship with the father. The mother asserts that 

the father's behavior was not sufficiently severe to factor into

the judge's consideration of her fitness as a parent, 

particularly if viewed under the standards that apply to 

evidence of domestic violence in private custody disputes. 

In private child custody disputes, the rights of the 

parents are, "in the absence of misconduct, . . . held to be 

equal." G. L. c. 208, § 31. The determination whether to award 

shared legal or physical custody, or whether to give one parent 

sole legal or physical custody, thus turns entirely on "the 

happiness and welfare of the children." Id. There is "no 

presumption either in favor of or against shared" custody, id.

-- unless the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence 
9

that one parent has engaged in "a pattern of abuse," or a single 

"serious incident of abuse,"8 in which case a rebuttable 

presumption against granting custody to the abusive parent

arises. G. L. c. 208, § 31A. See Malachi M. v. Quintina Q., 

483 Mass. 725, 737-738 (2019). Although the Legislature has not 

seen fit to superimpose the procedures and presumptions of § 31A 

on care and protection or termination of parental rights 

proceedings, the mother suggests that this court should do so --

and hold that the evidence of domestic violence in this case was

insufficient to create a presumption against custody under G. L. 

c. 208, § 31A. We decline the invitation.

Different standards apply to private custody disputes than 

apply to State-involved custody proceedings for good reason. 

Resolving a private custody dispute involves comparing the 

advantages each parent may offer the child. When the State 

intervenes in matters of custody, however, a comparison between 

 

8 "Abuse" is defined as "the occurrence of one or more of 

the following acts between a parent and the other parent or 

between a parent and child: (a) attempting to cause or causing 

bodily injury; or (b) placing another in reasonable fear of 

imminent bodily injury." G. L. c. 208, § 31A. A "[s]erious 

incident of abuse" is "the occurrence of one or more of the 

following acts between a parent and the other parent or between 

a parent and child: (a) attempting to cause or causing serious 

bodily injury; (b) placing another in reasonable fear of 

imminent serious bodily injury; or (c) causing another to engage 

involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress." 

Id.
10

the parents, or "comparison of the advantage [a] prospective 

custodian may offer to the child with those that may be offered 

by the natural parents is inappropriate." Custody of a Minor, 

389 Mass. 755, 765 (1983). See Guardianship of Estelle, 70 

Mass. App. Ct. 575, 580 (2007) ("we do not transfer a child from 

his or her parent to other custodians merely because the latter 

may provide a more advantageous environment for the child's 

upbringing"). Moreover, in private custody disputes the parents 

usually have agreed to separate, whereas in State-involved 

proceedings, it is often the case that a parent has not resolved 

to leave an abusive relationship, thereby exposing the child to 

domestic violence.

Also, unlike private custody disputes, which concentrate 

entirely on the interests of the child, care and protection 

proceedings begin with a focus on the rights of the parents and 

a strong presumption in favor of parental custody. See Santosky

v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-754 (1982); Adoption of Frederick, 

405 Mass. 1, 4 (1989); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., M. McBrien, & P.A. 

Kindregan, Family Law and Practice § 61:1 (4th ed. 2013). 

Accordingly, the State must prove parental unfitness by clear 

and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof always remains 

with the department. See Care & Protection of Erin, 443 Mass. 

567, 570-571 (2005); Care & Protection of Laura, 414 Mass. 788, 

790-791 (1993).
11

Finally, while evidence of spousal or child abuse may be 

dispositive in a private custody dispute under G. L. c. 208, 

§ 31A, in care and protection and termination proceedings it is

one of many factors that the judge considers. See G. L. c. 210, 

§ 3 (c). Domestic violence "is only one of many 'subsidiary 

facts' on which a judge must make findings in deciding the 

ultimate question of parental unfitness." Care & Protection of 

Laura, 414 Mass. at 794. No one factor is determinative. See 

Care & Protection of Yetta, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 691, 695 (2014).

The evidence in this case supported the judge's reliance on 

domestic violence as a significant factor in deeming the mother 

unfit. The instances of serious physical abuse may have been 

few,9 but there was ample evidence of the father's manic, 

controlling, threatening, and unpredictable behavior toward the 

mother. The father verbally abused her constantly, slapped her,

blocked doors during arguments to prevent her from leaving, and 

confiscated her cell phone and other belongings. The mother 

testified about the emotional toll the father's behavior had on 

 

9 On one occasion before Jacob was born, the father grabbed 

the mother by the arms so hard that the police, responding to 

the scene, observed black and blue marks on the mother's upper 

arms. The father was arrested for domestic assault and battery, 

but the complaint was dismissed when the mother refused to press 

charges. In another incident, when the mother was pregnant, the 

father, who was intoxicated, locked his arms around her so 

tightly that she was in fear and bit him. This incident 

resulted in the mother's arrest. 
12

her10 and about her fears that Jacob would "be exposed to what 

[she] was exposed to." 

The evidence also supported the judge's finding that the 

mother exhibited a "dependency and inability to separate from 

[the f]ather," and that "despite [her] participation in 

counseling and domestic violence services, she [did] not have 

the capacity or the desire to end her relationship" with him. A 

judge may properly consider a parent's decision to remain in a 

relationship with an abusive partner in determining parental 

fitness. See Adoption of Willow, 433 Mass. 636, 645 (2001); 

Adoption of Lisette, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 293-294 & n.15 

(2018). The mother testified variously that she meant to end 

her relationship with the father for Jacob's well-being, and 

that she hoped to marry the father "if we go to couple's 

counseling, in a couple years," because she wanted Jacob "to 

have both of his parents." The judge found it telling that the 

mother and the father had stayed in a motel together the night 

before the last day of trial. 

b. Substance use and mental health. The mother asserts 

that the judge improperly relied on her substance use and mental 

health issues in finding her unfit. "When assessing parental 

 

10 The father's conduct made the mother feel "insane": "I 

start rocking back and forth and like having a panic attack and 

like begging him to stop. . . . [L]ike he triggers my innermost 

insecurities." 
13

fitness, it is not enough to state that a parent is mentally 

impaired, rather there must be a showing that the condition 

affects the parent's ability to care for the child." Adoption 

of Quentin, 424 Mass. 882, 888 (1997). Thus, a parent's mental 

health "is relevant only to the extent that it affects the 

parents' capacity to assume parental responsibility, and ability 

to deal with a child's special needs." Adoption of Luc, 484 

Mass. 139, 146 (2020), quoting Adoption of Frederick, 405 Mass. 

at 9. Likewise, a parent's substance use or misuse "clearly is 

relevant to a parent's willingness, competence, and availability 

to provide care, though not necessarily dispositive of the 

issue." Care & Protection of Frank, 409 Mass. 492, 494 (1991).

The record supports the judge's findings that the mother's 

failure to address her numerous mental health issues and her 

misuse of prescribed and nonprescribed substances interfered 

with her ability to assume parental responsibilities. The 

mother's difficulties in managing her emotions and stress, as 

well as her history with alcohol and nonprescribed substances, 

including Xanax prescribed to her grandmother and morphine 

prescribed to the father, affected her ability to care for 

Jacob. The judge was troubled by evidence that the mother took 

extra doses of Xanax and shots of alcohol before two visits with 

Jacob, and by her appearance of being under the influence of 

alcohol or drugs during trial on a day she had driven herself to 
14

court. The judge was particularly concerned by an incident 

disclosed for the first time during the trial (which had never 

been disclosed to the department) in which the mother, 

contemplating suicide, took a gun from her grandparents' home, 

went into the woods, and fired it. Although the mother had 

taken some steps to comply with the department's family action

plan with respect to her substance use and mental health 

treatment, these efforts began only shortly before trial. 

c. Best interests determination. The judge's factual 

findings and conclusions with respect to the mother's issues of 

domestic violence, mental health, and substance use demonstrated 

careful attention to the evidence and the law. See Adoption of 

Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005). In effect, the mother's 

arguments amount to dissatisfaction with the judge's weighing of

the evidence. We, however, afford deference to the judge's 

assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of 

the witnesses, as well as to the judge's determination of the 

child's best interests, reversing only if there is clear error 

or abuse of discretion. See Adoption of Larry, 434 Mass. 456, 

462 (2001); Adoption of Hugo, 428 Mass. 219, 225 (1998), cert. 

denied sub nom. Hugo P. v. George P., 526 U.S. 1034 (1999);

Adoption of Cadence, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 162, 166 (2012). The 

evidence was clear and convincing that the mother was unfit to 

parent Jacob and likely to remain so.
15

2. Exclusion of the grandparents from parts of the trial. 

The grandparents contend that they were wrongly excluded from 

parts of the care and protection proceedings, and that their 

exclusion violated their right to a fair trial on their 

guardianship petition.11 Having carefully reviewed the parties' 

arguments and the voluminous trial transcript, we discern no 

abuse of discretion or reversible error in the judge's handling 

of the trial.

a. Grandparents' presence and participation. On the first 

day of trial, the mother moved to sequester the witnesses, 

noting that the grandfather was present in the court room. The 

judge denied the request, stating, "[H]e's the placement so I'm 

going to allow him to stay." The father was the first witness 

to testify. During his testimony, the judge interrupted to 

admonish the grandfather for shaking his head "up and down or 

side to side" while the father testified. 

On the third day of trial, during the mother's testimony, 

counsel for the department and counsel for the mother alerted 

 

11 The father, the mother, and Jacob all join in this 

argument in their briefs, although at trial the mother and Jacob 

agreed with the judge that the grandparents should not be 

present during the care and protection proceedings. We reject 

Jacob's further argument that the grandparents' exclusion 

violated his due process rights. Jacob was represented by 

counsel, who advocated ably on his behalf, with undivided 

loyalty, throughout the proceedings. Contrast Adoption of 

Flora, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 339-340 (2004).
16

the judge that the grandfather had been taking "voluminous" 

notes throughout the closed proceedings.12 They also argued that 

his presence during the testimony of the mother and the 

anticipated testimony of the mother's aunt (aunt) -- another 

potential guardian -- might affect the witnesses' candor on the 

stand and jeopardize subsequent relations among the parties. 

The department moved to sequester the witnesses. With only 

counsel for the father objecting, the judge allowed the motion 

and asked the grandfather to leave the court room and surrender 

his notes. At the end of the day, the grandfather was invited 

back into the court room to discuss scheduling of the 

proceedings on the guardianship petition. The grandfather asked 

for and received assurances that the guardianship petition would 

not be heard until after the termination proceedings had 

concluded.

The grandparents were not present for the fourth or fifth 

days of trial, when the mother's testimony continued and the 

aunt's testimony began. On the sixth day of trial, an attorney 

appeared on behalf of the grandparents. The judge told the 

attorney that he could be present for any testimony concerning 

proposed guardians, including the continued testimony of the 

 

12 Care and protection matters are closed to the public. 

See G. L. c. 119, § 38.
17

aunt at the next trial date; the attorney stated that he was 

available to attend.13

Nonetheless, the grandparents' attorney was not present for 

the seventh, eight, or ninth trial dates, during which the 

mother, the aunt, and a department case worker testified. On 

the tenth day of trial, the department called its adoption 

social worker, who would testify about the department's position 

with respect to the grandparents' proposed guardianship. 

Because the grandparents' attorney was not available, the judge 

permitted the grandmother to remain in the court room for this 

testimony.14 From that point on, at least one grandparent, their 

attorney, or both were present, and the attorney, when present, 

was permitted to cross-examine witnesses.

b. Grandparents' rights. As an initial matter, the judge 

properly heard the care and protection and the guardianship 

 

13 When the grandparents' attorney first made his 

appearance, the judge explained to him that the trial was "still 

in the fitness stage," but because "the evidence does 

intertwine," she would permit him to be present when "we start 

talking about who's going to be proposed as guardians." She 

then advised the attorney, "[U]nless I hear otherwise, you are 

not going to be participating in the care and protection trial, 

nor are you going to have access to any of the records of the 

parents." The attorney said he understood and did not object.

14 On the ninth day of trial, counsel for the father 

informed the judge (erroneously) that the grandparents' attorney 

planned to withdraw. The judge responded that she would "allow 

the grandparents to sit in on" the department's testimony 

concerning its position on the grandparents' guardianship 

petition. 
18

petitions concurrently. See Guardianship of Phelan, 76 Mass. 

App. Ct. 742, 749 (2010). Nonetheless, the petitions retained 

their separate character. See id., citing A.M. Karp, Child 

Welfare Practice in Massachusetts § 19.4.1 (Mass. Cont. Legal 

Educ. 2006 & Supp. 2009) (even where guardianship and care and 

protection petitions are heard together, guardianship petition 

is separate action with its own docket number). As the 

department was not proposing guardianship as its goal, it was 

not necessary to formally consolidate the matters. See Care & 

Petition of Thomasina, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 563, 574 n.19 (2009).

Analogizing to cases in which parents were deprived of 

their right to participate in child welfare proceedings, 

directly or through appointed counsel, the grandparents argue 

that the judge's handling of the proceedings violated their 

fundamental rights. The analogy is flawed. "Parents have a 

fundamental liberty interest in maintaining custody of their 

children, which is protected by the due process clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Care & 

Protection of Erin, 443 Mass. at 570. Although the grandparents 

love and provided care for Jacob, they have no constitutionally 

protected interest in their relationship with him, whether as 

grandparents, temporary custodians, or guardianship petitioners. 

See Guardianship of K.N., 476 Mass. 762, 765 (2017) (grandmother 

with de facto parent-guardian status had no protected liberty 
19

interest giving rise to due process right to appointed counsel 

in removal proceeding); Care & Protection of Jamison, 467 Mass. 

269, 283 (2014) (guardianships "are solely creatures of statute" 

and "neither the equivalent of nor coextensive with 

parenthood").

As relatives and the custodians of Jacob at the time of 

trial, the grandparents did have a statutory right of access to 

the care and protection proceedings. See G. L. c. 119, § 29D 

(requiring department to give notice of care and protection and 

certain other proceedings "to a foster parent, pre-adoptive 

parent or relative providing care for the child" and to inform 

same of "right to attend the hearing and to be heard"). 

However, this right does not confer party status nor the right 

to cross-examine witnesses in the care and protection 

proceedings. See id. ("Nothing in this provision shall be 

construed to provide that such foster parent, pre-adoptive 

parent or relative shall be made a party to the proceeding"). 

The reason current custodians are given the right to be heard --

"and need not suffer in silence if the parties choose not to 

call them" -- is to "ensur[e] that judges have all the relevant 

information about the child at their disposal." Adoption of 

Sherry, 435 Mass. 331, 338 (2001). The "best procedure" for 

exercise of this limited right in any given case is left to the 

discretion of the trial judge. Id. at 338 n.6.
20

Similarly, the judge possessed the discretion to sequester 

witnesses during the trial. "Sequestration of witnesses lies in 

the discretion of the trial judge." Zambarano v. Massachusetts 

Turnpike Auth., 350 Mass. 485, 487 (1966). See Custody of a 

Minor (No. 2), 392 Mass. 719, 726 (1984) (within judge's 

discretion to exclude testimony of nonparty grandmother where 

judge had ordered sequestration of witnesses but grandmother 

remained in court room throughout trial). Here, the grandfather 

appeared to be coaching the father during his testimony, and the 

judge could reasonably conclude that the grandparents' presence 

during the testimony of the mother and the aunt might interfere 

with their ability to testify fully and frankly. Nonetheless, 

the grandparents or their attorney were present, or permitted to 

be present, for substantial portions of the proceedings 

concerning parental fitness, and they were afforded ample 

opportunity to be heard.

The grandparents did have the right to participate as 

parties in the guardianship proceedings, including the right to 

cross-examine witnesses.15 The judge consistently recognized 

these rights and made every effort to protect them. Thus, the 

 

15 These are not constitutional rights; they are procedural 

rights incident to party status in a civil case. See Covell v. 

Department of Social Servs., 439 Mass. 766, 787–788 (2003); 

Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 596–597 & n.3 (1995); Gilmore

v. Gilmore, 369 Mass. 598, 603 (1976).
21

judge ensured that the grandparents or their attorney was 

present for the testimony of any witnesses concerning whether 

the grandparents' continued custody would be in Jacob's best 

interests, as well as for testimony concerning competing custody 

arrangements. Unlike Guardianship of Phelan, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 

at 754, this is not a case in which the grandparents "never in 

fact had the opportunity to litigate."16

For the first time on appeal, the grandparents object to 

their partial exclusion; indeed, they contend that it 

constituted structural error, mandating reversal without a 

showing of prejudice, because the care and protection 

proceedings were "inextricably intermingled" with the 

guardianship proceedings. The doctrine of structural error, 

however, "does not control civil issues." Adoption of Gabe, 84 

Mass. App. Ct. 286, 293 (2013). Although it may provide a 

"useful analogy" where constitutional rights are at issue, id., 

the grandparents had no constitutional rights at stake in the 

proceedings.

 

16 Although we have commented favorably on the action of a 

judge presiding over a concurrent termination and guardianship 

case to give the guardianship petitioner "full access to the 

proceedings and the evidence" in the termination case, see 

Guardianship of Phelan, 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 749, quoting 

Adoption of Yvette (No. 1), 71 Mass. App. Ct. 327, 333-334

(2008), these allusions to the discretionary decision of a 

single trial judge do not amount to a rule that all guardianship 

petitioners are entitled "full access" to care and protection or 

termination cases involving the same child.
22

In addition to claiming structural error, the grandparents 

argue that they were prejudiced by their partial exclusion

because the judge, in denying their guardianship petition,

relied in part on testimony given on days when they were not 

present and did not have an opportunity to cross-examine 

witnesses. See Adoption of a Minor, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 468, 469 

n.1 (1986), citing Gilmore v. Gilmore, 369 Mass. 598, 603 (1976) 

("any decision on the merits which did not give persons having 

standing the right to cross-examine the [witness] would have 

been inappropriate"). Indeed, some testimony relevant to the 

grandparents' ability to care for Jacob was elicited during 

their absence, and in hindsight, the judge could have taken a 

broader view in determining which portions of the care and 

protection proceedings had potential relevance to the 

guardianship petition.

Nonetheless, we decline to disturb the adjudication of the 

guardianship petition, in large measure because of the 

grandparents' failure to object to the conduct of the 

proceedings. "Ordinarily, a party is not entitled to present an 

argument on appeal on an issue not presented in the court 

below." Atlas Tack Corp. v. DiMasi, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 66, 70 

(1994). See Adoption of Bea, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 416, 430 (2020). 

The rationale behind the waiver rule is that a timely objection 

affords the trial judge an opportunity to correct any possible 
23

errors in the proceedings. See Abraham v. Woburn, 383 Mass. 

724, 726 n.1 (1981); Commonwealth v. Lenane, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 

14, 19 (2011). Had the grandparents or their attorney argued 

that testimony to be given in their absence might be relevant to 

their ability to act as guardians, the judge may well have 

granted greater access.

This case does not present a clear injustice or implicate 

broad public policy concerns that might compel us to overlook a 

clear waiver. Contrast Rivas v. Chelsea Hous. Auth., 464 Mass. 

329, 336-337 (2013); White v. White, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 132, 133–

134 (1996). Much of the testimony taken outside of the 

grandparents' presence was cumulative of testimony offered while 

they were in the court room or their attorney was present. In 

addition, all of the parties present, except the department, 

were advocating for the grandparents' custody. Cf. Care &

Protection of Zelda, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 869, 872-873 (1989) 

(judge did not abuse discretion in denying foster parents' 

motion to intervene in care and protection proceedings where 

their interests were adequately represented by existing 

parties).17 Finally, "[t]he best interests of the child are the 

overarching concern" -- not the rights of other parties. 

 

17 But see Guardianship of B.V.G., 474 Mass. 315, 326 (2016) 

(even where interests of subject of guardianship petition are 

adequately represented, "interested person" within meaning of 

G. L. c. 190B, § 5-306 [c], has right to intervene). 
24

Adoption of Rico, 453 Mass. 749, 754 (2009). The judge took 

great care and carefully weighed the evidence of the 

grandparents' ability to provide for Jacob's best interests. 

Any error or abuse of discretion in the judge's handling of this 

complex case does not warrant reversal of her well-reasoned 

decision to dismiss the grandparents' guardianship petition.

3. Competing permanency plans. In determining that 

termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights 

served Jacob's best interests, the judge considered the 

competing plans proposed by the department, the parents, and 

Jacob, as well as the grandparents' guardianship petition. The 

judge determined that the department's plan of adoption by 

recruitment was in Jacob's best interests. The appellants argue 

that the department's plan was not sufficiently developed to 

warrant approval.

"In determining the best interests of the child, the judge 

must consider, among other things, 'the plan proposed by the 

department.'" Adoption of Varik, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 762, 770 

(2019), quoting G. L. c. 210, § 3 (c). The judge must also 

consider plans proposed by the parents or the child. See 

Adoption of Dora, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 472, 474-475 (2001). Where 

there are competing plans, "the judge must assess the 

alternatives and, if both pass muster, choose which plan is in 

the child's best interests, however difficult the choice may 
25

be." Id. at 475. "The judge's obligation to consider a plan 

involves much more than simply examining it. The judge must 

perform a careful evaluation of the suitability of the plan and 

must meaningfully . . . evaluate what is proposed to be done for 

the child" (quotations and citation omitted). Adoption of 

Helga, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 521, 528 (2020). Regardless of the 

party offering the plan, "[a] judge should provide an 'even 

handed' assessment of all the facts surrounding both the 

department's plan and any competing custody or adoption plan." 

Adoption of Hugo, 428 Mass. at 226 n.8. The judge may even 

reject all the plans offered and "order an alternative 

disposition, provided it is consistent with the best interests 

of the child." Adoption of Cadence, 81 Mass. App. Ct. at 171, 

citing G. L. c. 119, § 26 (b); G. L. c. 210, § 3.

Whether remaining in the grandparents' custody "was in 

[Jacob's] best interests presents 'a classic example of a 

discretionary decision' to which we accord substantial 

deference." Adoption of Peggy, 436 Mass. 690, 705 (2002), cert. 

denied sub nom. S.T. v. Massachusetts Dep't of Social Services, 

537 U.S. 1020 (2002), quoting Adoption of Hugo, supra at 225. 

In this regard, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's 

determination that any plans involving the grandparents did not 

advance Jacob's best interests. The judge concluded that the 

mother and the father were unfit and likely to remain so. The 
26

father required daily support from one or both of the 

grandparents and would continue to need their support if they 

were appointed Jacob's guardians. The grandfather, however, 

refused to believe that the father's problems were related to 

mental health issues, minimizing them as difficulties with time 

management and organization. Similarly, the grandmother denied 

that the father was abusive of the mother and explained away his 

conduct. The judge reached the well-founded conclusion that the 

grandparents were "enmeshed" with the father, and that their 

inability to place boundaries on the father would be harmful to 

Jacob.18 

Nor did the judge abuse her discretion in approving the 

department's plan. "The adoption plan need not be fully 

developed to support a termination order; it need only provide 

sufficient information about the prospective adoptive placement 

'so that the judge may properly evaluate the suitability of the 

department's proposal.'" Adoption of Willow, 433 Mass. at 652-

 

18 The judge concluded, "It is clear that [the grandparents] 

love Jacob and they have taken good physical care of him. 

However, . . . [the grandparents] have continued to prioritize 

[the f]ather's needs throughout this case above providing 

stability for Jacob. They have gone to great lengths to cover, 

intentionally lie and defraud the [c]ourt and/or minimize his 

deficiencies, and have allowed him access to Jacob outside of 

authorized visits, in violation of the temporary custody order. 

This [c]ourt finds that [the grandparents] are neither capable 

nor willing to maintain safe boundaries with [the f]ather in 

order to protect Jacob from future abuse and/or neglect." 
27

653, quoting Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 568 n.28 (2000). 

A suitable plan does not need to identify "prospective adoptive 

parents." Care & Protection of Three Minors, 392 Mass. 704, 717 

(1984). See Adoption of Scott, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 274, 278 

(2003).

The department planned to register Jacob with an adoption 

agency, which would "search for a family that would be able to 

meet Jacob's educational and emotional needs." The plan 

outlined Jacob's family's history with the department and 

included personal histories of Jacob, the mother, and the 

father, as well as Jacob's medical and developmental history. 

The department's adoption social worker testified about the 

concrete recruitment steps the department and the adoption 

agency would take to identify an appropriate adoptive family. 

Relying on Adoption of Varik, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at 771, the 

appellants argue that the department's plan "failed to specify 

the type of adoptive parents and the characteristics of the home 

environment best suited to meet [Jacob's] specific needs." Such 

detail was necessary in Adoption of Varik because, as a result 

of being physically abused by his father, the child had 

exhibited "troubling behavior" in his foster home, "including 

lying, a series of thefts, and hoarding food," and was 

"disruptive" at school. Id. at 764. Accordingly, "information 

describing the kind of home environment and adoptive family 
28

makeup that ideally would best meet Varik's particular needs" 

was essential. Id. at 771. See Adoption of Dora, 52 Mass. App. 

Ct. at 476-477 (where department's plan included two potential 

options, and "there was no singular definition of what was 

contemplated for" child, judge erred by approving plan and 

leaving "choice of adoptive placement to the discretion of"

department).

Although Jacob had specialized medical needs shortly after 

he was born, he received treatment resolving those needs.19 The 

judge found that Jacob was "a happy well adjusted twenty month 

old child," "had no special or specific needs," and "would not 

have any difficulty transitioning to a new home or bonding to a 

subsequent care giver." As Jacob did not require any particular 

type of adoptive parents or home environment, any effort by the 

department to provide more detail may have been 

counterproductive, narrowing the field of potential adoptive 

homes. The department's plan for Jacob had "content and 

substance enough to permit the court meaningfully to evaluate 

and consider . . . what [the department] propose[d] to do for 

 

19 Several months after he was born, Jacob was evaluated by 

a neurologist for plagiocephaly ("flat head syndrome"). He wore 

a helmet from November 2017 until April 2018, at which point 

that treatment was no longer necessary. He was discharged from 

the neurologist's care in August 2018. Jacob was also diagnosed 

with asthma, but his condition improved and he no longer needed 

treatment as of June 2018.
29

the child by way of adoption." Adoption of Lars, 46 Mass. App. 

Ct. 30, 31 (1998), quoting Adoption of Stuart, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 

380, 393 (1995).

Moreover, the judge took extra steps to oversee the 

department's recruitment efforts. Rather than wait twelve 

months for the mandatory review of the department's permanency 

plan required by G. L. c. 119, § 29B, the judge retained 

jurisdiction and ordered the department to report to her every 

thirty days to enable her to "closely monitor and assess the 

Department's efforts and progress in identifying a pre-adoptive 

home." The judge did not "merely . . . issue a broad 

dispositional order committing the child to the department's 

custody." Adoption of Cadence, 81 Mass. App. Ct. at 170-171. 

In these circumstances, the judge did not abuse her discretion 

in approving the department's plan of adoption by recruitment.

Conclusion. The decrees terminating the mother's and the 

father's parental rights and approving the department's adoption 

plan are affirmed. The order dismissing the grandparents' 

guardianship petition is affirmed.

So ordered.