Jurisdiction – Foster care

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff whose grandchildren were placed elsewhere filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, as the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim lies within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction but the Superior Court cannot grant the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiff.

“After initially placing the plaintiff’s three grandchildren into her foster care, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) notified the plaintiff that it would be placing the children into a new home. The plaintiff challenged that decision pursuant to DCF’s administrative fair hearing process, see 110 Code Mass. Regs. §10.01 (2014), but the children were removed during the process; the hearing officer subsequently rendered a final determination in the plaintiff’s favor. One month after that determination became final, with the children still placed elsewhere, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking (1) a declaration that DCF had violated its own regulations by ignoring the results of the fair hearing, and (2) an injunction returning her three grandchildren to her care. Reasoning that the Juvenile Court had exclusive original jurisdiction over placement-related matters, a Superior Court judge, who was a Juvenile Court judge sitting by special designation, concluded that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

“We conclude that the Superior Court cannot grant the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiff. When children have been adjudicated in need of care and protection and placed into DCF custody, any order concerning placement of such children is relief reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. But the Superior Court can issue a declaration that an agency’s ‘practices or procedures’ consistently violate its own regulations, G.L.c. 231A, §2, and thus the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim lies within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of dismissal, and we remand the case to the Superior Court.”

In the Matter of an Impounded Case (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-050-26) (9 pages) (Kafker, J.) A motion to dismiss was heard by Joseph F. Johnston, J., sitting under statutory authority. Jennifer M. Lamanna for the plaintiff; Phoebe Fischer-Groban for Department of Children and Families and another; Morgan A. Russell for the children; Ann Balmelli O’Connor and Andrew L. Cohen submitted a brief for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae (Docket No. SJC-13846) (May 8, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.