## Facts

- Hugo was born in September 1994; three days later, the Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained temporary custody through a care-and-protection petition and placed him in foster care.
- DSS later petitioned to dispense with both biological parents’ consent to adoption; a Juvenile Court judge initially dispensed with consent and approved adoption by Hugo’s foster mother after the parents failed to appear.
- That judgment was vacated by stipulation, and the case was retried before a different Juvenile Court judge with separate counsel for each parent.
- By the second trial, Hugo had lived for about a year with a foster mother who also cared for his sister, Gloria; Hugo formed attachments to both.
- Hugo had significant developmental disabilities requiring specialized care and frequent therapy-related appointments.
- DSS supported adoption by the foster mother; the parents proposed adoption by Hugo’s paternal aunt in New Jersey.
- The Juvenile Court again found the parents unfit, dispensed with consent, but concluded Hugo’s best interests favored adoption by the paternal aunt despite the disruption of removing him from the foster home.
- DSS and Hugo appealed; the Appeals Court reversed, favoring DSS’s plan; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Juvenile Court abused its discretion by approving adoption by the paternal aunt rather than the foster mother despite Hugo’s attachments and DSS’s recommendation.
2. Whether the court gave improper weight to the biological parents’ preferred adoptive placement after finding parental unfitness.
3. Whether the court improperly relied on a comparison of the prospective homes’ material advantages rather than the child’s best interests.
4. Whether the court committed reversible error in admitting and evaluating expert testimony concerning attachment and the effects of separation, and in weighing evidence about Hugo’s sibling relationship with Gloria.
5. Whether, in proceedings under Massachusetts law dispensing with parental consent to adoption, a judge may order an adoption plan different from the one proposed by DSS.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Appeals Court and affirmed the Juvenile Court’s judgment selecting adoption by Hugo’s paternal aunt.
- The Juvenile Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that adoption by the aunt best served Hugo’s long-term interests, even acknowledging likely short-term disruption from separation.
- The court did not give undue weight to the parents’ proposal; it treated it as one factor within the best-interests analysis.
- The court did not improperly choose based on material opportunities; it permissibly focused on stability, family setting, and the ability to meet Hugo’s special needs.
- The Juvenile Court permissibly admitted and credited expert testimony, and it adequately considered Hugo’s attachment to his foster family and his sibling relationship.
- A judge in such proceedings may approve an adoption plan different from DSS’s plan when supported by the evidence and consistent with the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- The child’s best interests govern selection among competing adoption plans, and trial judges have broad discretion in weighing fact-specific evidence.
- Appellate review of a best-interests adoption determination is for abuse of discretion; appellate courts should not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the trial judge’s.
- After parental unfitness and dispensation of consent, a biological parent’s proposed adoptive placement may be considered, but it does not control the outcome.
- A court may consider differences between proposed placements insofar as they relate to the child’s needs and long-term stability, not as a simple comparison of wealth or amenities.
- A trial judge may admit and weigh qualified expert testimony on attachment and separation harms and is not required to accept any single expert’s conclusions.
- In proceedings to dispense with parental consent to adoption, the judge may order an adoption plan different from that proposed by DSS if the alternative plan better serves the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a Juvenile Court order approving kinship adoption by a paternal aunt over DSS’s preferred foster-parent adoption, holding that the trial judge acted within discretion in the best-interests determination and may select an adoption plan different from DSS’s when supported by the record.


Adoption of Hugo, 700 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1998)