Panel hears dispute over whether Massachusetts was proper forum in child-welfare case

The panel resumed the March 2 sitting with a family-law jurisdiction appeal in which the court considered whether Massachusetts was the appropriate forum for a child who later received pediatric care, school, and therapy in Massachusetts.

Margaret Gary, counsel for the mother, argued the record lacks sufficient Massachusetts contacts at the time the child entered DCF custody and that the mother’s residence in New Hampshire and transient history weighed against Massachusetts jurisdiction. She said the issue was not litigated at trial and sought relief under Rule 60 and structural-due-process theories.

Counsel for the department, William Cuddle, responded that the trial court correctly found Massachusetts had appropriate-form jurisdiction under the MCCJA’s best-interest test, pointing to the child’s records, placement, and the mother’s interactions while present in Massachusetts. Cuddle and later Daniel Katz (for the child) emphasized the child’s ongoing ties to Massachusetts—pediatric care, therapy and school attendance—and the lack of a clear home state elsewhere.

The panel asked whether the court looks only at the facts at the moment of initial custody, or permits later-evolving facts to inform the best-interest calculus; counsel discussed Anisha (2016) and the statute’s cross‑state coordination function. After examination of the transient facts, pediatric records and the equities of reunification, the panel submitted the case.