Guardianship action should have been dismissed

BOSTON, MA — Where a guardianship action was brought in the Probate & Family Court, the action should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), G.L.c. 209B, as the facts of the case meet none of the four requirements set forth in G.L.c. 209B, §2.

“In this appeal stemming from a guardianship action in the Probate and Family Court, we are presented with two challenges: one by Finley’s mother to the Probate and Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over custody of Finley, whom we will call ‘the child’; and the other by the child’s temporary guardian, K.L., to a judge’s interlocutory ruling denying K.L.’s motion for appointment of counsel. Because we conclude that the Probate and Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the child’s custody under G.L.c. 209B, the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), we do not reach the additional question raised by K.L. whether it was error to deny her motion for appointment of counsel. Due to the lack of jurisdiction, the orders appointing K.L. as the child’s temporary guardian and extending her authority are vacated. The matter is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for entry of a judgment dismissing this action. …

“The child was born in February 2022, while the child’s parents were living in New Hampshire. The mother gave birth in a Massachusetts hospital, then returned with the child to New Hampshire. …

“Here, the parents resided in New Hampshire at the time the child was born. Although the mother delivered the child in a Massachusetts hospital, the family did not then relocate to Massachusetts; the parents returned to New Hampshire with the child following his birth and brief stay in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit. Where the parents continued to live in New Hampshire, neither the mother’s choice to deliver the child in a Massachusetts hospital nor the parents’ intention to relocate to Massachusetts conferred ‘home state’ jurisdiction on Massachusetts courts. …

“Nor did K.L.’s care of the child establish Massachusetts as his ‘home state.’ G.L.c. 209B, §§1, 2 (a) (1). The child was not living ‘with his parents’ in Massachusetts when K.L. took the child to Massachusetts at the parents’ request and cared for him there for several weeks. G.L.c. 209B, §1. To the extent that K.L. was then ‘a person acting as parent’ to the child, she had not lived with him in that capacity in any location ‘from birth.’ … Indeed, she had had custody of the child through the New Hampshire guardianship for less than one week at the time she petitioned for guardianship in Massachusetts. Thus, Massachusetts did not have ‘home state’ jurisdiction under the MCCJA. …

“… Based on the facts we have already discussed about where the child lived ‘from birth,’ we conclude that — at a minimum — it ‘appears’ under Massachusetts law that New Hampshire is the child’s ‘home state.’ G.L.c. 209B, §§1, 2 (a) (2). Accordingly, the MCCJA did not confer on the Massachusetts court default jurisdiction to act here. …

“… Where the child was in the custody of K.L., his legal guardian, the record supports neither abandonment nor emergency, and we conclude that G.L.c. 209B, §2(a)(3), did not confer jurisdiction. …

“In sum, the facts of this case meet none of the four requirements set forth in G.L.c. 209B, §2. Thus, we conclude that the Massachusetts court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over decisions concerning the child’s custody when K.L.’s petition was filed. … Given the lack of jurisdiction, all orders issued in the case by the Massachusetts court are void. …

“The orders appointing K.L. as temporary guardian of the child and extending her authority are vacated. The matter is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for entry of a judgment dismissing this action.”

Guardianship of Finley (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-044-26) (20 pages) (Hand, J.) Diana S. Spanos for the guardian; Deborah J. Bero for the mother; Andrew Kanter for the father; Natalie K. Hoppel for the child (Docket No. 25-P-909) (June 29, 2026).