Adoption of Susan

• Decision Date: 10 September 1993
• Citation: 416 Mass. 1003,619 N.E.2d 323
• Parties: ADOPTION of SUSAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 323

619 N.E.2d 323

416 Mass. 1003

ADOPTION of SUSAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued May 4, 1993.

Decided Sept. 10, 1993.

Mary L. Bonauto, Boston, for petitioners.

Toni G. Wolfman, Stefanie D. Cantor, Michael A. Albert & Sarah R. Wunsch, Boston, for Civ. Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

This matter arises from a reservation and report, pursuant to G.L. c. 215, § 13 (1992 ed.), by a Probate and Family Court judge on a question concerning that court's jurisdiction to consider a joint petition for adoption by the child's natural mother and her female partner. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion and conclude that the jurisdictional issue in this case is controlled by Adoption of Tammy, ante 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993), decided today.

There is nothing on the face of G.L. c. 210 (1992 ed.), the statute governing adoptions, that prevents the Probate Court from considering a joint petition to adopt brought by unmarried petitioners like the two women in this case. The provision in § 1 that requires married persons to adopt jointly does not by its terms apply to unmarried persons. The statute does not otherwise expressly require or prohibit joinder by any person. The Probate Court thus has jurisdiction to consider a variety of adoption petitions to determine whether a proposed adoption is in the subject child's best interests. Adoption of Tammy, supra.

The judge in this case did not hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the necessary written consents and other preconditions to adoption have been obtained, or whether the requested adoption would be in the best interests of Susan. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings pursuant to G.L. c. 210.

For the reasons stated in Adoption of Tammy, supra at 217, 619 N.E.2d at 321, Justices Nolan, Lynch and O'Connor do not join in this opinion.

So ordered.