## Facts

- Peggy, a young child and Indian citizen, lived in Massachusetts with her father, an Indian citizen present on a temporary nonimmigrant work visa.
- The father brought Peggy to the hospital with a fractured elbow requiring surgery and failed to ensure necessary follow-up care.
- Months later, the father brought Peggy to the hospital with a “soft spot” on her head and an eye swollen shut; medical evaluation revealed multiple injuries across her body.
- Medical findings included severe injuries consistent with abuse and neglect, including genital mutilation with substantial blood loss and head trauma.
- DSS filed a care and protection petition in Juvenile Court, obtained custody, and placed Peggy in foster care while pursuing adoption.
- After trial, the Juvenile Court found the father’s explanation—that Peggy inflicted her injuries on herself—not credible, and found that he either abused her or permitted the abuse.
- The Juvenile Court adjudicated Peggy in need of care and protection, committed her to DSS’s permanent custody, and entered a decree dispensing with the father’s consent to adoption, effectively terminating his parental rights.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts Juvenile Court had authority under G.L. c. 119, §§ 24, 26 and G.L. c. 210, § 3 to terminate the parental rights of a foreign national present in the United States on a nonimmigrant visa.
2. Whether termination of the father’s parental rights was barred by federal immigration law preemption or violated international law principles invoked by the father.
3. Whether the father’s unfitness was proved by clear and convincing evidence and whether challenged medical reports and statements were properly admitted.
4. Whether the judge complied with G.L. c. 210, § 3 by determining that dispensing with the father’s consent and approving an adoption plan served the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Juvenile Court decrees adjudicating Peggy in need of care and protection, committing her to DSS, and dispensing with the father’s consent to adoption.
- The court held the Juvenile Court had authority to act because jurisdiction arose from the child’s presence in Massachusetts and her need for protection, not the father’s immigration status.
- The court rejected claims that federal immigration law or international law barred termination in these circumstances.
- The court upheld the findings of parental unfitness as supported by clear and convincing evidence and upheld the evidentiary rulings admitting the challenged medical materials.
- The court concluded the statutory best-interests requirements were satisfied and the adoption plan was properly accepted.

## Legal Principles

- Massachusetts courts may exercise child-protection and adoption-related authority over children present in the Commonwealth, regardless of a parent’s nationality or nonimmigrant visa status.
- Federal immigration law does not preempt state care-and-protection proceedings or termination of parental rights where the proceedings regulate child welfare rather than immigration status.
- International law principles cited by a parent do not bar termination when the proceeding is directed to protecting the child from serious abuse and neglect and securing permanency.
- Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of current parental unfitness and a determination that dispensing with consent serves the child’s best interests under G.L. c. 210, § 3.
- Trial judges’ credibility findings receive substantial deference on review; reliable medical evidence may support findings of abuse, neglect, and unfitness.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts affirmed termination of a nonimmigrant father’s parental rights where a child in the Commonwealth suffered severe abuse and neglect, holding that state child-welfare jurisdiction turns on the child’s need for protection and is not displaced by federal immigration law or international law arguments.


Adoption of Peggy, 436 Mass. 690, 767 N.E.2d 29 (2002)