Background
Finley (a pseudonym) was born in February 2022 in a Massachusetts hospital to parents who were living in New Hampshire. After a brief neonatal stay, the parents returned with the child to New Hampshire, where they continued to reside. In early March 2022, the parents asked their relative K.L.—who lived in Massachusetts—to care for the child temporarily at her home while they arranged housing. K.L. agreed, but rather than waiting, she filed a petition for guardianship in New Hampshire court on March 16, 2022, and the New Hampshire court promptly appointed her as temporary guardian and granted the parents visitation rights.
Less than a week after that appointment, and before a full guardianship hearing in New Hampshire had concluded, K.L. filed a second petition for guardianship in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. A Massachusetts judge later appointed K.L. as temporary guardian over the parents’ objections, and that appointment was repeatedly extended. Meanwhile, the New Hampshire proceeding unraveled: K.L. failed to appear at a scheduled conference there, and the New Hampshire court dismissed its proceeding and ordered the child returned to the parents. Despite this, the Massachusetts temporary guardianship remained in effect for nearly four years. In 2023, the mother moved to vacate the Massachusetts guardianship for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), G. L. c. 209B. The motion was denied. K.L.’s separate bid for appointed counsel as guardian generated an interlocutory appeal, and the mother obtained leave to raise the jurisdictional question before a panel of the Appeals Court.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Hand, writing for a panel of Desmond, Hand, and Hodgens, JJ., vacated all orders appointing K.L. as temporary guardian and remanded the matter for dismissal, holding that the Massachusetts court had never possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the child’s custody. The MCCJA limits Massachusetts courts to four jurisdictional grounds, and the court methodically rejected each one.
Home state jurisdiction (G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(1)): For a child under six months old, the “home state” is the state where the child lived from birth with a parent. Because the parents resided in New Hampshire and returned there with the child after the hospital stay, New Hampshire was the child’s home state. The mother’s choice to deliver in a Massachusetts hospital did not change this—a parent cannot confer home state jurisdiction on a state where she does not actually live merely by declaring an intention to move there. Nor did K.L.’s care of the child in Massachusetts establish home state jurisdiction: K.L. had not lived with the child “from birth” in any capacity. Default jurisdiction (G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(2)) was unavailable because it requires that no other state appear to have home state jurisdiction—but New Hampshire clearly appeared to have it. Emergency jurisdiction (G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(3)) did not apply because the child was already under the protective custody of K.L. as his duly appointed New Hampshire guardian; the record showed neither abandonment nor a child-abuse emergency. Appropriate forum jurisdiction (G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(4)) was unavailable because it requires the home state to have declined to exercise its jurisdiction—but New Hampshire had done the opposite, exercising jurisdiction and ordering the child returned to the parents. The Massachusetts courts also failed to communicate with the New Hampshire court as the MCCJA expressly authorizes, see G. L. c. 209B, § 7(c).
Even assuming Massachusetts could have had jurisdiction, the court held that G. L. c. 209B, § 2(d) independently barred the Massachusetts proceeding. That provision prohibits a Massachusetts court from exercising custody jurisdiction while a parallel proceeding in another state is pending—where that other state is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the MCCJA—unless the other court declines, stays its proceedings, or defers to Massachusetts. None of those conditions were met. All orders issued by the Massachusetts court were therefore void. Because dismissal was required, the court declined to reach K.L.’s argument that she was entitled to appointed counsel under G. L. c. 190B, § 5-212(d).
Key Takeaways
- Under the MCCJA, a newborn’s “home state” is the state where the child lived from birth with a parent—not the state where the child happened to be born in a hospital if the family returned to another state afterward.
- A parent’s stated intention to relocate to Massachusetts, or the choice to deliver in a Massachusetts hospital, cannot confer home state jurisdiction on Massachusetts courts if the family actually resides elsewhere.
- A Massachusetts court cannot assert emergency jurisdiction where the child is already in the lawful custody of a guardian appointed by the child’s home state court, and the record shows no abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
- G. L. c. 209B, § 2(d) independently bars a Massachusetts custody proceeding commenced while a home-state court is actively exercising jurisdiction, unless that court declines or stays its proceedings. Orders entered in violation of the MCCJA are void—not merely voidable—and must be vacated even after years of proceedings.
- When concurrent custody jurisdiction is genuinely unclear, Massachusetts courts should communicate with the courts of the other state (G. L. c. 209B, § 7(c)) before asserting or denying jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
Guardianship of Finley is a significant ruling for Massachusetts family lawyers handling cross-state custody and guardianship disputes. The case illustrates a fact pattern that arises more often than courts acknowledge: a child born in a Massachusetts hospital to out-of-state parents, with a Massachusetts relative leveraging that birth connection to seek jurisdiction here. The Appeals Court’s response is unequivocal—a Massachusetts birth does not make Massachusetts the home state, and four years of Massachusetts proceedings do not cure the original absence of jurisdiction. All orders were void ab initio and must be vacated.
The practical message for practitioners is clear: before filing a guardianship petition in Massachusetts, identify the child’s home state under G. L. c. 209B, § 1 and determine whether another state is already exercising jurisdiction. Filing in Massachusetts while a home-state proceeding is pending—without securing a declination or stay from the home-state court—exposes the entire Massachusetts case to dismissal regardless of how long it has been pending. The court’s reminder about inter-court communication under G. L. c. 209B, § 7(c) should also prompt judges and counsel to treat concurrent jurisdiction questions as a threshold matter requiring explicit resolution, not a background issue to be deferred.