## Facts

- Oliver, a minor child with special needs, had been in foster care for several years.
- In 1984, a Juvenile Court care-and-protection proceeding awarded permanent custody of Oliver and his three older brothers to the Department of Social Services and produced extensive findings about the family.
- In a later adoption-related proceeding, the Probate and Family Court admitted the prior Juvenile Court findings as an exhibit without objection or restriction.
- In 1988, the Probate and Family Court found the mother unfit, dispensed with her consent to Oliver’s adoption, and included a requirement that the decree be reviewed after one year if no adoption decree had entered.
- Significant delay occurred between the trial and entry of the 1988 decree and during the appellate process; the contemplated one-year review did not occur while the appeal was pending.
- The mother appealed, arguing that reliance on older findings rendered the unfitness determination unfairly based on stale information.

## Issues

1. Whether the Probate and Family Court erred by relying substantially on findings from a prior Juvenile Court proceeding when determining the mother’s unfitness and dispensing with her consent to adoption.
2. What action was required regarding the decree’s built-in one-year review provision given the prolonged delays.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the decree dispensing with the mother’s consent to adoption.
- The court held that the probate judge permissibly used the prior Juvenile Court findings, which were admitted without objection, as part of the evidentiary basis for unfitness.
- The court directed that the review hearing contemplated by the decree be scheduled without delay, allowing the mother to present additional evidence bearing on current fitness.
- The court declined to decide whether the one-year review period ran from entry of the decree or from the appellate rescript, focusing instead on the need for immediate review.

## Legal Principles

- Findings from an earlier care-and-protection proceeding may be admitted and considered in a later proceeding dispensing with parental consent to adoption, particularly when introduced without objection and used with other evidence.
- A court may rely on historical findings to assess a sustained pattern of parental difficulties, even when the parent argues the information is outdated.
- When a decree dispensing with consent includes a scheduled review mechanism and significant delay prevents timely review, an appellate court may affirm the decree while requiring prompt review to consider updated evidence of parental fitness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the determination that the mother’s consent to adoption could be dispensed with, concluding that prior Juvenile Court findings were properly considered, but required an immediate review hearing to mitigate the effect of delay and permit consideration of current evidence on parental fitness.


Adoption of Oliver, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 620, 554 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)