Adoption of Hugo

700 N.E.2d 516 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Adoption of Hugo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
700 N.E.2d 516 (1998)


Upon Hugo’s birth in September 1994, the Department of Social Services (DSS) (plaintiff) filed a care-and-protection petition, known as a dependency petition in other jurisdictions, in the juvenile court. DSS unsuccessfully attempted to place Hugo with L, a foster mother who had custody of Hugo’s sister, Gloria. Instead, DSS placed Hugo with a different foster mother. In Hugo’s first year of life, the court adjudicated him to be in need of care and protection, and Hugo was diagnosed with severe disabilities that required special care and therapy appointments. In mid-1996, DSS learned that while Hugo’s foster mother did not want to adopt him, Hugo’s aunt, J, did. DSS did not investigate the possibility of J’s adoption of Hugo because DSS had already decided that Hugo should be placed with L, where he was placed in August 1996. In January 1997, when Hugo was about two and a half years old, his birth parents (defendants) and DSS agreed for the juvenile court’s order to be vacated and for the matter to be heard by another judge. In the fall and winter of 1997, the new judge held a new trial concerning the care-and-protection petition. Hugo had been in L’s care for about one year, along with Gloria and two other foster children, with more foster children to join them. During that year, Hugo had bonded with L and Gloria. L had been taking Hugo to his therapy appointments but had given him no special care to improve his well-being. DSS recommended Hugo’s adoption by L, but Hugo’s birth parents recommended his adoption by J. In February 1998, the court held that Hugo was a child in need of care and protection because of the birth parents’ unfitness. The next month, the court announced its extensive findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order containing an adoption plan. The court found that Hugo’s best interests would be served by J’s adoption of him. The court reasoned that while his transfer to J’s custody would be difficult for Hugo because of his bond with L and Gloria, J and her extended family could better help Hugo reach his full potential. DSS appealed. One of its arguments was that the court gave too much weight to the birth parents’ recommended adoption plan. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the birth parents’ recommendation was too risky. The birth parents appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership