## Facts

- The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) received a report alleging neglect of “Walt,” a three-year-old child living with his parents at the maternal grandmother’s home.
- During an unannounced home visit, a DCF investigator reported smelling marijuana and observed substantial trash and clutter in the family’s living area.
- The investigator removed Walt from the home before speaking with the parents; the parents later stated they lacked public housing, were prevented from cleaning by the grandmother, and occasionally used marijuana.
- DCF sought emergency custody, and a Juvenile Court judge issued an ex parte order transferring temporary custody to DCF for up to 72 hours, certifying that DCF had made “reasonable efforts” to prevent removal.
- At the 72-hour proceeding, the mother stipulated to continued DCF custody; the father requested an evidentiary hearing.
- At the evidentiary hearing, the investigator testified she decided to remove Walt within about 10 minutes, did not explore alternatives to foster care, and did not know all services DCF could offer.
- The Juvenile Court judge continued DCF’s temporary custody without making explicit reasonable-efforts findings and stated DCF had no obligation beyond removal.
- On interlocutory review, a single justice concluded the Juvenile Court’s view of DCF’s obligations was incorrect, imposed conditions (including enhanced visitation and housing-related efforts), and reported the matter; the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) took the case on transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether a judge must make a reasonable-efforts determination when issuing an emergency order transferring custody for up to 72 hours and revisit that determination at the subsequent 72-hour hearing if custody continues.
2. Whether “exigent circumstances,” absent a statutory exception, excuse DCF from making reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.
3. Whether courts have equitable authority to order DCF to take remedial steps to mitigate harm from a failure to make reasonable efforts before removal.

## Decision

- The SJC held that judges must make a reasonable-efforts determination at the emergency transfer of custody and must revisit that determination at the 72-hour hearing if DCF custody is continued.
- The SJC held that, where none of the statutory exceptions applies, exigent circumstances do not excuse DCF from the reasonable-efforts requirement, though reasonableness is assessed case-by-case with child safety paramount.
- The SJC held that a finding of no reasonable efforts does not prevent a judge from entering orders necessary to protect the child and serve the child’s best interests.
- The SJC held that courts possess equitable authority to order DCF to take reasonable remedial steps to reduce adverse consequences of DCF’s failure to make reasonable efforts.
- The SJC affirmed that a single justice may impose appropriate remedial conditions (e.g., visitation-related and housing-related measures) within the limits of equitable authority and the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 29C, when a court transfers temporary custody to DCF, the court must determine whether DCF made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal, unless a statutory exception applies.
- The reasonable-efforts determination is a judicial obligation that must be made at the emergency custody transfer and reconsidered at the 72-hour hearing if custody is continued.
- Exigent circumstances do not create an extra-statutory exception to § 29C; emergencies may affect what efforts are “reasonable,” but do not erase the duty to assess reasonable efforts when no statutory exception applies.
- The child’s health and safety are the paramount concern; immediate removal remains permissible when necessary to prevent serious abuse or neglect.
- A determination that reasonable efforts were not made does not bar protective custody orders; courts may still order dispositions conducive to the child’s best interests.
- When DCF fails to make reasonable efforts, courts may order reasonable remedial measures aimed at reducing harms caused by that failure (including steps supporting family contact and reunification planning).

## Conclusion

The SJC required explicit, stage-specific judicial findings on DCF’s reasonable efforts at both the emergency transfer and the 72-hour continuation of custody, rejected a freestanding “exigent circumstances” excuse when no statutory exception applies, and confirmed that courts may both maintain necessary protective custody and order equitable remedial measures to mitigate agency noncompliance.


Care & Prot. of Walt, 478 Mass. 212, 84 N.E.3d 803 (Mass. 2017)