In re Guardianship of V.V.

• Decision Date: 10 February 2015
• Docket Number: SJC–11739.
• Citation: 470 Mass. 590,24 N.E.3d 1022
• Parties: GUARDIANSHIP OF V.V.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

470 Mass. 590

24 N.E.3d 1022

GUARDIANSHIP OF V.V.

SJC–11739.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2015.

Decided Feb. 10, 2015.

Glenna Goldis for the mother.

Andrew L. Cohen, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Susan R. Elsen, Lynn, Jamie Ann Sabino, Julie Gallup, Russell Engler, Mary K. Ryan, Shaghayegh Tousi, & Alison Holdway, Boston, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc., & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.

Opinion

SPINA, J.

The mother of the minor child, V.V., appeals from the denial, in the Probate and Family Court, of her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). In the motion she alleged that a judgment appointing

a permanent guardian for V.V. was void for lack of due process because she was not appointed counsel or afforded alternative procedural safeguards in the guardianship proceeding. We granted her application for direct appellate review. We dismiss the appeal as moot but also hold that a parent of a minor child has a right to counsel where, as here, someone other than the parent seeks to have himself or herself appointed as the child's guardian pursuant to G.L. c. 190B, § 5–206.¹

Background. The details of the events leading up to the guardianship decree are set forth in Gianareles v. Zegarowski, 467 Mass. 1012, 5 N.E.3d 1213 (2014). The essential facts are as follows. A judge in the Probate and Family Court appointed the mother's grandmother, and V.V.'s great-grandmother, as V.V.'s permanent guardian in December, 2012. Id. at 1013, 5 N.E.3d 1213. The mother was not represented by counsel in the guardianship proceeding. Id. In May, 2013, then represented by counsel, the mother filed her rule 60(b)(4) motion as well as a petition to remove the great-grandmother as V.V.'s guardian pursuant to G.L. c. 190B, § 5–212 (a ). Id. The judge denied the rule 60(b)(4) motion. While the mother's appeal from that denial has been pending, her petition for removal of the guardian proceeded in the regular course. On July 29, 2014, after a trial, a judge (who was not the judge who had appointed the guardian) vacated the guardianship. All parties, including both the mother and V.V., were represented by counsel at the trial on the removal petition. The great-grandmother did not appeal from the judgment vacating the guardianship.

Because the guardianship has been vacated and V.V. has been returned to the mother's custody, the issue whether the mother was entitled to counsel is moot.² The issue, however, is of significant public importance. It is also capable of repetition and,

given the short time periods in which guardianship matters are often decided and the fluidity of the proceedings even after an appointment of a guardian (as demonstrated by this case), it is an issue that can easily evade appellate review in the ordinary course. We therefore exercise our discretion to address it. See, e.g., Care & Protection of Erin, 443 Mass. 567, 568, 823 N.E.2d 356 (2005), and cases cited.

Discussion. “The interest of parents in their relationship with their children has been deemed fundamental, and is constitutionally protected.” Department of Pub. Welfare v. J.K.B., 379 Mass. 1, 3, 393 N.E.2d 406 (1979), and cases cited. Due process requirements must therefore be met before a parent is deprived of his or her parental rights. Id. Due process includes “the right to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Id. at 4, 393 N.E.2d 406, quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). An indigent parent whose parental rights may be terminated, for example, “cannot be said to have a meaningful right to be heard in a contested proceeding without the assistance of counsel.” Department of Pub. Welfare v. J.K.B., supra at 4, 393 N.E.2d 406.

These interests are no less compelling for a parent whose child is the subject of a guardianship proceeding. The guardian, once appointed, assumes significant rights and responsibilities during the period of guardianship that otherwise would have resided with the parent. See G.L. c. 190B, § 5–209. “A guardian of a ward has the powers and responsibilities of a parent regarding the ward's support, care, education, health and welfare.” G.L. c. 190B, § 5–209 (a ). The guardian's rights and responsibilities to ensure the child's welfare effectively displace those of the parent. The guardian, and not the parent, becomes the primary caretaker and decision maker for the child. Even if the guardianship lasts for only a brief period of time, the displacement impacts the parent's liberty interests. Cf. Matter of Hilary, 450 Mass. 491, 496, 880 N.E.2d 343 (2008) (noting that even six-month placement of child outside home when child has been adjudicated child in need of services has impact on parent's liberty interest in parent-child relationship). While it is true that the parent's underlying parental rights are not forever terminated as a result of the guardianship, they are severely circumscribed, becoming subsidiary to those of the guardian, for as long as the guardianship remains in effect.

Because of the impact of a guardianship on the parent-child relationship, and the particular nature of the fundamental rights at stake, an indigent parent whose child is the subject of a guardianship

proceeding is entitled to, and must be furnished with, counsel in the same manner as an indigent parent whose parental rights are at stake in a termination proceeding or, similarly, in a care and protection proceeding. To be sure, the Legislature has already expressly provided for the appointment of counsel in a guardianship proceeding where the Department of Children and Families or a licensed child placement agency is a party. General Laws c. 119, § 29, thus provides:

“Whenever the department or a licensed child placement agency is a party to child custody proceedings, the parent, guardian or custodian of the child ... shall have and be informed of the right to counsel at all such hearings, in

...