SJC hears dispute over Massachusetts court jurisdiction in newborn custody case

The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments over whether a Massachusetts juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a care-and-protection case for a newborn born in a Connecticut hospital, attorneys told the justices during oral argument.

Attorney Sherry Krasner, representing the child, told the court: "I'm asking the court to laser focus on two statutes, chapter 119 and chapter 209B," and argued those statutes, read together, require dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The issue matters because a finding that Massachusetts courts lacked jurisdiction would require dismissal or remand of the underlying care-and-protection proceedings and would shift responsibility for the child's welfare and any investigations to Connecticut authorities.

Krasner said the infant "came into care when he was 2 days old. That was 268 days ago," and urged the court to treat Chapter 119's "child of the Commonwealth" threshold as dispositive. Counsel argued the record shows the child was born in Connecticut to parents domiciled there and that Massachusetts trial judges did not address that threshold before exercising jurisdiction.

Attorney Nathan Bench, representing the appellant mother, told the justices that "section 209B, section 1 defines a child's home state, an infant's home state less than 6 months as the state in which they lived from birth with a parent in that state," and pointed to trial-court findings that the parents and mother in particular had multiple Connecticut connections: residing in a Connecticut shelter, Husky insurance, prenatal care and services in Connecticut, and the child remaining in a Connecticut hospital after the petition was filed.

Attorney Dana Shunivert, representing the father, emphasized that the record shows the father is the child's legal father and that the family unit was a Connecticut family. She argued the statutory text does not require a particular duration of residence and urged the justices to reverse denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Julie Gallup, counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, defended the department's actions as an emergency response, saying, "This child, the department determined that this child was in danger," and arguing the department had reasonable grounds to assume emergency custody and the juvenile court found a "significant connection" and substantial evidence in Massachusetts, including that half-siblings remained here.

The justices questioned counsel at length about how to interpret "lived with" and "child of the Commonwealth" in Chapter 119 and the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Chapter 209B), including whether the juvenile court could exercise default or emergency jurisdiction when a newborn is born in a hospital in another state but removed by a Massachusetts agency. Counsel debated whether Massachusetts should have shared case information with Connecticut DCF after the child's birth and whether an ICPC (interstate compact) home-study had been sought or denied.

Counsel for the appellants urged that if the court finds no jurisdiction, the proper remedy would be to remand with instructions to the Probate and Family Court to dismiss the underlying care-and-protection petition and to allow communication between the Massachusetts and Connecticut agencies during the rescript period; counsel cited record statements that Connecticut DCF indicated willingness to accept the case if Massachusetts entered an order of dismissal. Counsel for the department said emergency intervention was appropriate under the facts known to DCF at the time and emphasized the department's duty to protect the child.

The justices did not announce a decision at the hearing. No formal order was issued from the bench during the argument recorded in the transcript.