2023-11-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
2023-11-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Covering a variety of legislative proposals, thank you, pertaining to probate and family. Right now, I'm gonna ask, we're joined by our house cochair representative Michael Day and ask that he introduce his colleagues.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, mister chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm joined here Today by our vice chair, representative Barbara Somerville, and representative Scanlon of Attleboro. Joining us virtually is representative Carey and representative Fluke Roque.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much, chair Day. I'm, before we begin, I just want to remind participants and viewers of some Ground rules to ensure that everyone, was registered as a chance to speak. Testimony will be limited to 3 minutes per individual. Individuals may only speak once per hearing49 but may address more than 1 bill during their testimony. As is customary in the legislature, we'll be taking public officials out of turn. Written testimony may be submitted at any time for consideration until the committee acts on the bill. This may be sent either63 by mail to the judiciary committee at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Boston, Mass 02133, or by email to research director Michael Musto at michael.musto@mehouse.gov.
We have over 45 individuals signed up to speak today and ask to take this into consideration when it's your turn to speak. We Let's see. We're gonna be calling, bills based on bill number and your name on the registration form, and, we do take, legislators at a turn. So I do see see some legislators here. I don't think,96 representative Conn is here. I see98 representative Machino. Representative Machino, would you like to testify?
Thank you.
REP MESCHINO - HB 1679 - Thank you so much. So, I am here on House 1679, an act improving legal and administrative proceedings for court involved families. So just a little background on this Bill. It's sort of a first-time file except that it's really made up of about six or seven other Bills that were before you last session. I've been filing these133 Bills for a couple of sessions now. I'm sure some of you remember, I was the executive director of Massachusetts Appleseed, and we worked a lot around care and protection, worked closely with the CAFL unit, and so when I got elected, CPCS came right to me. But mostly because I understand sort of the key primary drivers behind these Bills, and it's really about trying to influence how positive changes160 some of them are small, some of them are large. That's really meant to minimize the Trauma of being in DCF care on children and families. So, you'll see as you go through this Bill, this kind of three main ideas that are in here, giving the court178 more discretion, on temporary restraining orders, and temporary orders, me around how, and when they can award custody and things like that. Reversing Isaac and Jeremy so that the court has more discretion to actually provide services and to oversee some of those things during the pendency of these cases, and really the idea that to keep families together.
As you all well know from hearing all of this testimony, immersing yourselves in the subject, when DCF takes a child into custody, it's always with the expectation that the child will go back to the family, and for the vast majority of these care and protection cases, in fact, children do get reinstated back with their parents after services and they work things out. It usually happens within 18 months, and so what we're saying is put that front and center and make it so that it's a child forward decision-making process. So really, the subject matter experts here at CPCS attorneys, I'm sure Michael Dsida will be along at some point to testify in front of you, and I would encourage you, we will submit testimony, as well, but I would really encourage you to ask the CPCS counsel. This is all born of their years of experience in handling these cases, and, really, the idea is to make changes to various stakeholders, to empower them to really, as I said,274 elevate the child in276 the decision-making process. Naturally, I don't remember which Section, I think it's like 2 and 9, but, one piece of this did move forward last session to House Ways and Means. The other thing I'll just tell you is that there are about eight other Bills that we also brought together in another omnibus Bill that's in front of Chair Livingstone, and the committee on children and families, and those have to do with cultural competencies, things like that. These pair very well together, so I just want to make sure you knew that that was also out there as well. So, I'm happy to try to answer any questions, but I would defer to my subject matter experts. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, representative Maraschino. Any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank you so much for your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Russell Ramos,328 did you wish to speak? No. Thank you. No? Okay. Alright. Let's see. I think now we will call on, Amanda Hainsworth, office of the attorney general.
Thanks for coming before the committee.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you for having me.
AMANDA HAINSWORTH - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the joint committee on the judiciary. Thank you for the opportunity to testify361 before you today. My name is Amanda Hainsworth, and I am a senior legal adviser to Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. I am here today on behalf of the Attorney General to express her strong support for House Bill 1713 and Senate Bill 947, commonly described as the Massachusetts Parentage Act. The Attorney General thanks Senators Cyr and Tarr and Representatives Peake and Kane for their strong leadership in filing this critically important Bill to strengthen385 families in the Commonwealth. The Attorney General strongly supports this legislation389 for a variety of reasons. Massachusetts parentage laws are woefully out of date, and the Commonwealth has fallen behind efforts across the country to ensure that parentage statutes reflect the diversity of modern-day families and advances in science. The Massachusetts Parentage Act would update Massachusetts statutes to clarify who can be a parent and how to establish parentage. This Bill would codify parentage precedents from the Supreme Judicial Court, ensure that children born through assisted reproductive technology have a clear route to establish their legal parentage, provide clear standards for establishing parentage through surrogacy and for courts to resolve parentage claims, and achieve equality for LGBTQ plus families so they can establish their parentage like other families.
Indeed, it is critical that we take these steps in order to ensure that all children can access the security of legal parentage regardless of how they were conceived and the marital status, gender, or sexual orientation of their parents. Although Massachusetts has served as a beacon for the nation on LGBTQ plus rights and reproductive rights, we are significantly behind and out of step with the rest of the country on451 parentage protections. Every other New England state and many other states in the country have comprehensive parentage protections like those proposed in this Bill. Notably, parentage protections have been consistently upheld by courts across the country, and in these jurisdictions, there has not been a surge in467 meritless or abusive litigation. This national landscape underscores the importance of these protections to children and families across the country and that these protections comport with the constitution. I wanted to end by stressing that it is critically important that these protections be enacted now. While the Massachusetts Parentage Act will impact and485 strengthen all families in the Commonwealth, it is particularly important to LGBTQ plus families whose rights and well-being are among the most vulnerable. Massachusetts is not494 immune from organized attacks against LGBTQ plus rights. Indeed, there has been a noticeable uptick in litigation brought by well-funded ideological interest groups seeking to curtail the rights of LGBTQ plus people here in Massachusetts, and against this backdrop, it is imperative that we do not delay in codifying these legal protections. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before today, and515 I'm happy to try to answer any questions you may have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, attorney Hainsworth. Appreciate you coming for the committee, Representative attorney general Andrea Campbell. Are there any questions from the526 committee members? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate coming for the committee.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We had some elected other elected officials, sign up. They might be coming a little bit later. So we're gonna go into, Other testimony. The 1st bill is senate 923 filed by senator Cream, a route an act relative to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Peter Jamieson from the Boston Bar Association.
SPEAKER2 - Mister chair, I'd just like to recognize representative Mendez has joined us virtually as well. Great. Thank you.
SPEAKER8 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER1 - Hello. Good afternoon. Please go ahead.
PETER JAMIESON - HASTINGS, JAMIESON & LIPSCHUTZ FAMILY LAW GROUP LLP - SB 923 - SB 969 - Thank you, Chairman Day, Chair Eldridge, and members of committee. My name is Peter Jamieson, I'm a partner with Hastings Jamieson and Lipschutz Family Law Group. We have offices is in North Andover, and I'm representing the Boston Bar Association587 today as co-chair of the legislative subcommittee of the BBA's Family Law section. I'm here today to speak on behalf on two Bills; S 923 and S 969, both of which the BBA strongly supports. Now, shifting over to 969 first. This605 is a Bill that was filed, I believe, a few years ago, and it is to adjust the alimony percentages relative to determining the amount of alimony for general term alimony, which is the primary form of alimony here in the Commonwealth. If you will recall back in 2012, the legislature enacted the act to reform alimony, and the whole purpose behind that was to give consistency and reliability to judges, counsel, and most importantly, the parties. Skip to 2018, and what happened is there's a637 new tax code enacted, and the Alimony Reform Act set up a multiplier system so that you take the payor's income, deduct the payee's income, and take that delta and multiply it by 30 to 35%. Because of that tax reform in Washington, we took away the tax includability and the tax deductibility of alimony, and that throws those657 numbers completely off.
Now one of the financial minds and the forefront financial minds, Mr. Mark Bello has come up with this Bill and drafted and submitted it with the help of assistance. And, basically, what it is, it's like a currency converter. It's taking the old the new numbers and adjusting it to the old numbers so that we come out with the exact same net after tax effect. Shifting over to 923, this is the uniform child custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. I've testified before his committee, at least on two occasions, about this.690 Massachusetts is the only state in the United States which694 has not enacted this, Bill. This Bill allows for more streamlined custody jurisdiction enforcement. It allows for more consistency; it reduces the amount of conflict between states. I do want to point out that Massachusetts borders 5 other states, and we're very, very small. Where I practice in North Andover, we're not too far away from Lawrence where I am often in court and will be in court tomorrow, and it's very much the regular718 to see that you have a custody issue with someone721 in Lawrence and another parent right across the border in Salem, maybe less than 20 minutes away, Salem, New Hampshire. The aim of this is to prevent forum shopping, and it would change our current law, which cedes jurisdiction over our custody orders, after six months in the residency of the new state. We are the only jurisdiction which has not implemented this. And also, just to end, this version of the UCCJE has built in protections for victims of domestic violence, permitting their attendance at hearings by telephone, and in some cases, relinquishing jurisdiction to another state if reciprocal provisions are in place there. I'm happy to answer any other questions. I will also say that the BBA761 continues to have some concerns about shared parenting legislation of765 the parentage Bill, about shared parenting, and we'd love to work further with this committee on769 those issues. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, attorney Jamieson. Appreciate it. Any questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - I do see that Middlesex County District Attorney Marion Ryan's here. Thank you. Hello.
MARIAN RYAN - MIDDLESEX DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - SB 1025 - Good afternoon,788 Chair Eldridge. Chair Day, thank you for790 taking me out of turn. I am here to testify in support of Senate Bill 1025. This is a Bill that we filed with Senator Lewis at the request of a number of victims, both at his constituents and that we had seen across the county. This Bill is a very measured response to a continuing problem when victims are tied to their abusers811 by family relationships. During a period of time when an abuser may either be in pretrial status or immediately following their conviction, they are able to use a probate order to continue visitation with826 a child that they may have in common with the victim or who may actually be a witness to the case. This Bill would provide for an end to visitation during that pretrial period and for one year after conviction. Even if they're still serving a sentence after one year, it would permit visitation to resume. If someone is acquitted along the way, obviously, the ban would end, but it really is an attempt to stop the influence or attempted influence of children who may become witnesses or of children that are shared between the parties. It also provides that at any point, either the child, if they're in an appropriate age, guardian ad litem, or even though another parent may agree to lift that ban. But before the abuser is allowed to resume visitation, that they take appropriate parenting classes, submit to an evaluation. So, I think when we look across the scope of the numbers of these cases where there is a shared child, the continuing relationship that will far exceed the time that the criminal case is going, this is a very measured way to both relieve the pressure on victims of abuse and eventually allow for the resumption of a relationship between a child and the incarcerated parent. So, I'd ask for support and a favorable report on this Bill. I'm happy to take any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, district attorney Ryan. Any questions from the committee members? K. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you.
SPEAKER12 - And thank you for taking
SPEAKER13 - me. Mhmm.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Now we have, House 16/79 by Rob Machino, an act improving legal and administrative proceedings for court involved children926 and families. And 1st person we have signed up to say is Michael DeSita, from CPCS.
Hello.
MICHAEL DSIDA - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - HB 1679 - Good afternoon. I'm Mike Dsida, deputy chief counsel with the Committee for Public Counsel Services. I oversee our children and family law division,950 which provides attorneys to parents and children in child welfare cases, and I'm here in support of H 1679. Today, I'm going to focus on three provisions of the Bill. First relates to improving oversight of the Department of Children and Families. In other states, juvenile or family court judges regularly oversee the work of agencies like DCF. But in two 1995 cases, the SJC determine that DCF975 alone has the power to977 make placement decisions for children in its custody, and that judges can only assess whether DCF has abused its discretion. This abuse of discretion standard provides almost no oversight even when DCF's decisions are not in a child's best interest. So long as DCF's decisions aren't arbitrary and capricious, they will stand. In one of those cases, the SJC invited the legislature to clarify the juvenile court's authority. Sections 1 and 3 of this Bill do just that, they provide the fix that the SJC invited. It gives judges the power to oversee DCF's decisions, which makes sense given the training and experience that our juvenile court judges have. The consequences of1021 DCF having almost unfettered discretion over children in its care have been tragic. Children suffer emotional, physical, mental harm as a result of DCF's faulty exercise of its clinical judgment. The legislature can protect children from those harms by clearly authorizing judges to review DCF's decision and intervene when DCF is not acting children's best interests.
Another problem that this Bill helps to address is that of youth whose parental rights have been terminated, but who never find a family. These youth are more likely than appears to drop out of school, suffer mental illness, become homeless, abuse substances. Meanwhile, years after the termination decree is entered, their parents end up in different positions. They may achieve sobriety, find them appropriate housing and be in appropriate relationships. Many youths in foster care want to reestablish those legal relationships with their parents, but current law doesn't authorize that. Section 10 provides a process by which those parent child relationships can be reestablished. More than 20 states have already provided for this, and Massachusetts should follow their lead and provide a path to permanency for these youngsters. Section 6 also provides a new path for1097 permanency. Under current law, when a juvenile court has entered a temporary custody order, it won't revisit that order until trial takes place, which is often two years away from the temporary custody order, that's true even if foster care is no longer needed. In contrast, in probate and family court, in divorce and custody cases, judges regularly review and revisit their initial custody orders. Under the juvenile court's approach, the best interest of children is not protected, so we'd ask that this committee report out favorably, give the court authority to review DCF's decisions, and review the temporary custody orders that are entered at the outset of the case. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, mister Seceda. Thanks for coming for the committee. Any questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much.
Our next bill is house 1390 filed by representative Balzer, An act to ensure equitable representation in probate court proceedings involving children. And I have Jacqueline Parker to testify. Hi. Jacqueline Parker here.
SPEAKER16 - Good afternoon.
JACQUELINE PARKER - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN - HB 1390 - Good afternoon. For most of my 47 years as a lawyer, I focus on the rights and needs of abused and neglected children, both as a legal scholar and as an advocate. I also serve on the boards of the National Association of Counsel for Children and the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services, which is the agency you just heard from that trains and appoints attorneys for children. House 1390 was inspired by a couple of my cases in which I was appointed as appellate counsel for the children, one was a case which involved a mother who sought to have her1212 husband, the stepfather who had1214 supported the children for six years1216 adopt1216 her children. The mother and stepfather were concerned about the stepfather's lack of authority to consent to medical care for the children and whether if something happened to the mother, the biological father was a convicted sex offender having raped the mother's child from a prior marriage and had spent years in prison, so she wanted him to be the one who would get custody of her kids should something happen to her. The children were terrified of him, the ones that who remembered him because he would lock them in the room while he was looking at pornography and was mean. The stepfather had custody of his child and worked as a car mechanic to support the entire family as the mother was attending nursing school.
Obviously, with four children, really, five if you include the older daughter who was raped to support, there wasn't any money with which to pay a lawyer, and it was very difficult for them to pursue the step parent adoption. Meanwhile, the convicted sex offender was entitled to free appointed attorney and also received funds to hire an expert, under the Indigent Court Cause Act. So, this would level the playing field a little bit so that these folks would be able to1303 have an attorney too. Another example is a case in which a guardian had done a wonderful job of raising a child from the day he left the hospital, who was then three years old, and the birth mother would then have1320 sought1320 to try to get the kid back after he was with the guardian for a long time, and if she hadn't gotten an inheritance from her grandmother, she would not have been able to get an attorney to keep the child. Indigent biological parents have a right to counsel, and the case is a constitutional due process right under LB versus chief justice is the probate Corp 474 Mass 231. So, the only way to create an equal playing field, because the Department of children and families is not a party in these cases, so there's no one for the parent. The only way to create an equal playing field is for the Parent in the step parent or the guardian to be able to get a court appointed attorney too, just like a biological parent can. There are many studies in case law that emphasize the importance of stability for children. Children can't vote, but the law should be what's good for the children. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee? Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Next bill is house 1518 by representative Gary, an act relative to shared parenting. We have Paula McLaughlin, in opposition from the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.
SPEAKER12 - Hi. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. We can.
SPEAKER12 - Okay. Great.
PAULA MCLAUGHLIN - LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 1518 - I represent League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, thank you for having me, and we represent members across the state. The league supports programs that benefit the well-being and safety of children on all levels. I have submitted written testimony, and, so I would actually just like to point out a couple of reasons why we oppose this. The elephant in the Bill, not all children benefit from frequent and ongoing contact with both parents. They have found that families where the parents have good communication skills are better educated, live in close proximity to each other, are extremely flexible, and have relatively equal economic status. Those children do better with frequent and ongoing contact, they also do better with sole custody. This Bill does not address those children, this Bill addresses that small percentage of cases that are high conflict that continually go before the family courts for adjudication. As we know, there have been many studies that a high percentage of these cases actually1495 involve domestic violence. Frequent and ongoing contact with abusers and, not only traumatized and retraumatized children and their protective parents, but they also bog down the courts.
So even though this is a rebuttable presumption, it is somewhat unrealistic to assume that a family court judge with over 2,000 complex cases in their caseload and cases that involve hundreds or thousands of documents are going to be able to effectively analyze these cases for that rebuttable presumption. One other thing that I would like to highlight that is not in my written testimony is that Australia has had this on a national basis, they passed it in 2006, they implemented it by 2008. As of last month, they have introduced a Bill to actually get rid of this law because of the high failure rate. They have the failure rate depending on the statistics you're talking about of 51 to 90%, and their data is very good because it is national. Our data is somewhat piecemeal because we go state by state, but there are indications that it would have the same failure rates here in this country if we did it nationally. It's a bad idea, it's chilling, it really does not address the concepts of coercive control, abuse of litigation, and manipulation in these cases. So, we urge you to oppose these Bills. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, miss McLaughlin. Thanks for your testimony. Questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
I think we're waiting on, to a little later for the next panel, so I'll call the next, Bill House 1782, senate 909 by representative Turco and senator Brady, an act relative to child centered family law. And the 1st person to testify is1631 Richard Fasillo. Yes. Yes. Good afternoon. Forgive me if I mispronounced your last name.
SPEAKER18 - You saw a little bit shallow in the morning.
RICHARD PUCCILLO - COMMISSION ON CHILD SENATE FAMILY LAW REFORM - HB 1782 - SB 909 - Good afternoon. I'm here in support of House Bill 1782. My name is Richard Puccillo, I serve as the citizens representative on Governor Patrick's commission on Child Senate Family Law Reform. The team that wrote this legislation, legislation that took over a year to write and countless hours of meetings and debates between all the stakeholders in the Commonwealth. I would like to recognize the participants here and now so that you know the power of the1682 legislation. Attorney Rachel Biscotti from the Women's Bar Association, David Calvo from a father's voice, Chief Justice Paula Carey, the honorable Angela Ordonez, Robin Deutsch, child and family forensic psychologist, attorney John Fiske from the Boston Bar Association, myself, the citizens representative, Gail Garinger, the Office of Child Advocacy, Attorney Richard Gideon, Family law1717 practitioner Sheridan Haines, Governor's counsel to address sexual assault and domestic violence, Doctor Peter Hill, who's here today from the Fatherhood Coalition, doctor Ned Holstein from the National Parents Organization, Attorney Joyce Kaufman from the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association, doctor Marsha Pruitt, researcher and clinical psychologist, Attorney Michael Leshin from the Governor's office of representatives, Attorney Christine Paradisio, community legal, aid, Attorney Denise Squillante from the Massachusetts Bar Association, and Attorney Anita Robbie from the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
That's an impressive list of people who came together and put this legislation together, it's been around for a while. When we started this process of writing this common-sense legislation, believe it or not, I had a full head of hair, and my children, whom I've shared physical custody of, were in grade school, but now all graduated from college, law school, and graduate school. To be clear, I'm not some jaded dad, I joined the fight because I experienced something in family court that was wrong, and I tried to make it right. Nobody disputes the evidence from study after study that a child spending as much time as possible with both parents is in the best interest of the child when parents are divorced. How this piece of legislation has not made it into law is simply a travesty, it gives the court specific guidelines in determining shared parenting responsibilities. It has passed two times in the House, but I fear it has been blocked in the Senate by individuals with self-serving interests. I think enough is enough, don't let it happen again. Please pass legislation 1782 into law. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you, mister Porcello. Appreciate it. Any questions from committee? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next person to testify is Peter Hill. Peter Hill. Hello again.
SPEAKER19 - Hello.
PETER HILL - MASSACHUSETTS CHIROPRACTIC SOCIETY - HB 1782 - SB 909 - My name is Peter Hill, I'm a father of two beautiful and bright women. I have practiced chiropractic for 37 years in Massachusetts. I'm a docent from the New England Holocaust Memorial, I'm a volunteer Ed surrogate parent for the Commonwealth, I was Vice President of the Massachusetts Chiropractic Society. I've taught swimming at the Y in Waltham, and I also teach skiing at the yes kids dot org and teach skiing at the Blue Hills. I'm the administrator of divorced and separated parents of Massachusetts Facebook page with over 1,000 members. I would like to thank all of the members of the judiciary committee for your public service to the Commonwealth. Former Governor Deval Patrick appointed me and 18 others to the working group on family law. This bill, S 909 and the Turcos Bill was written by two chief justices of the probate court, a member of the gay and lesbian bar, the women's bar, the Boston bar, by the Mass bar, and two of the top psychologists in the state, and a person representing victims of domestic violence. The working group was chaired by Attorney Michael Leshin, who wrote a book on family law. S 909 was a compromised Bill that we hashed out over two years of monthly meetings. It's not everything I would want in a Bill such as a rebuttable presumption who this woman was against, and others felt it was not everything that they wanted either. S 909 is a vast improvement over what the law is today.
As a society, should we accept that by the time a child reaches 18 years of age in inner city Boston that more than 70% will not have their dad in their life? Should we accept that middle aged divorced fathers have the highest rates of suicide? Should we accept that kids who grow up with a single parent, usually mom only, grow up to be more violent and grow up to use drugs? S 909 is a public health, Bill; it gets to the root of the aforementioned society ills. S 909 addresses many shortcomings of the present Bill, it encourages shared parental responsibility, but does not mandate it. S 909 follows the current child support guidelines by encouraging2000 a parenting schedule of at least 1/3 of the time with each parent, S 909 does have an enforcement provision for parents who failed to comply with the court ordered parenting plan. These are just a few of the provisions in the bill. S 909 does away with the antiquated terms such as custody and replaces them with shared parental responsibility. Divorce and separation should not change a parent from a parent to a visitor. S 909 preserves judicial discretion. S 909 provides a workable and understandable framework that the court will utilize when the needs of a child, which are paramount, are being considered in developing the parenting plan and parental responsibilities. Let's work together to try to change this negative feedback loop. Please work to pass Senate 909 so we can prove all kids and parents' lives, and we will all benefit. In addition to my brief statement today, I will be submitting additional written testimony. Thank you all for your time.2058 SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, mister Hill, for coming for the committee. Any questions from the committee members? K. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER19 - Again.
SPEAKER1 - The next bill is house 1601, senate 1037, Filed by representative Conn and senator Lovely, enact prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and family in juvenile court proceedings. We have a Panel, a hybrid panel, including Anna Richardson from Veterans Legal Services, Harry Wiseman from the Disability Policy Consortium, And Kate Neemons from the Mental Health Legal Advisory Committee.
SPEAKER20 - Hello.
SPEAKER21 - Hi.
HARRY WEISSMAN - DISABILITY POLICY CONSORTIUM - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, Chair Day, Chair Eldridge, and members of the committee. Thank you for taking the time to consider our testimony in support of H 1601 and S 1037, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities in family and juvenile court proceedings. And appreciate you taking our panel hybrid, some of us are on Zoom. My name is Harry Weissman, I'm the director of advocacy at the Disability Policy Consortium, which is a statewide disability rights advocacy research and policy organization. The issue here is people with disabilities have their kids taken away from them at alarming rates, and, this spans across all disabilities. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and mental health disabilities face this acutely, but deaf parents, we hear will have their kids taken away because, their kids need to learn how to speak or assumptions are made about what someone in a wheelchair can and can't do for their child. Having their kids taken away is the culmination or worst-case scenario of commonplace assumptions and discrimination against people with disabilities and their ability to parent. But the reality is people with disabilities can be just as good parents as people without disabilities. I'll also add that disabled parents of disabled children are often exceptional parents, because they already know how to navigate a system, that it's inaccessible2192 to them and will fight just as hard2194 or even harder, for their kids as they do themselves.
Disabled parents are constantly under2200 threat of losing custody of their children. I think it's important to recognize which parents have DCF called on them in the first place, which parents are less likely to retain custody in a divorce, and what we hear a lot is parents being reluctant to seek supports and services for disabilities, and health conditions, also to leave abusive partners out of fear of discrimination and losing custody as a result, and having the treatments that they seek, a need be used against them in court. So, H 1601 and S 1037 require the court to provide written evidence of the nexus between the parent's disability and potential harm to the child, and also consider whether adaptive equipment or supportive services would alleviate any of the harms. So, this is a simple common-sense protection against the worst of the worst consequences of discrimination and implicit bias against disabled people and disabled parents. I'd also add too, this is really in the best interest of the child. You know, that's obviously, one of the most important things, but, separation from one's parent or ending up in the foster care system are on their own bad outcomes for children. And, of course, there are situations where sometimes limiting or denying custody or parental rights is2283 necessary for the safety of the child, and this2285 Bill doesn't prevent that in those situations, but we want to prevent scenarios2289 children are put in worse situations due to baseless assumptions about a parent's disability. So, this committee has already passed this Bill2298 in the past sessions, we encourage you to2300 do that again, and thank you again so much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate you coming for the committee. And the other 2 people are virtual?
SPEAKER9 - Yes.
SPEAKER22 - Good afternoon.
KATE NEMENS - MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ADVISORS COMMITTEE - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon. Thank you to the Chairs and to committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. My colleague, Harry Weissman has spoken very eloquently about this Bill. My name's Kate Nemens, I'm the supervising attorney for the Family Law Project at the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee. We're an agency of the Commonwealth that supports and advocates for the rights of individuals with mental health issues. For almost 20 years, I've represented parents with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities in the probate and family court, in custody and divorce proceedings, and in more recent years, I've been an advocate for the rights of parents with disabilities involved with the Department of Children and Families. Throughout all of these years, I've seen how devastating it can be for a parent to be separated from their child, particularly when that separation is the result of a discriminatory assumption about their disability as opposed to about the individual's actual ability to love and care for their child. This legislation serves an important purpose in our courts, it requires a judge to examine their own decision-making process when considering a parent's disability and to make decisions based on supporting evidence that can be articulated through their written findings as to the actual harm that would come to the child as a result of the parent's disability and to do this decision making before separating the family. This works to prevent decisions from being made that are based on stigma or bias about a parent's disability, and thus ensures fuller equal treatment by our courts and for all parents to be judged on their capacity to parent their child and not on their disability alone.
Additionally, the Bills require the court to review whether any accommodations, like adaptive equipment or supportive services would alleviate the harm to the child that the judge has identified as a concern. These preventative measures can assist a family in staying together and maintaining their relationships rather than enduring the trauma of unnecessary separation. It furthers the court's goal of acting in the child's best interest by keeping children with their families, with services or supports in place if needed. Nothing in these Bills prevents judges from making decisions that are necessary to ensure that children are safe. House 1601 and Senate 1037 bring both the family and juvenile courts in line with existing case law and ensure compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of parents with any kind of disability, whether physical sensory, psychiatric, or intellectual. But reliance on the federal law is not enough, despite 33 years since the enactment of the AADA, parents with disabilities are still disproportionately more likely to lose custody of their children to the other parent and much more likely to have state child welfare involvement, particularly if they're a person of color. In 2020, the Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement with the Department of Children and Families to address what was identified as systemic discrimination across the agency against parents with disabilities in our child welfare system, that settlement agreement expires this month. These are not only issues from our past, we still need the State to codify these civil rights to ensure the equal treatment of parents with disabilities right now. I ask you to report this legislation out favorably from this committee as it has done in the past to help protect parents with disabilities and2503 their families across the Commonwealth. Thank you.2505
ANNA RICHARDSON - VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Thank you, Chairperson Eldridge, Chairperson Day, and members of the committee. My name is Anna Richardson, I am the co-executive director of Veterans Legal Services, and our mission is to help Massachusetts military veterans overcome adversity by providing them with free civil legal assistance that honors their service, promotes their well-being, and responds to their distinctive needs. I'm here today to express our strong support for this Bill. Because military service is the profession associated with the highest rate of divorce and domestic relationship breakdown, family law is a significant area of need for veterans’ legal services clients for loving, caring, and capable parents. Most of today's military veterans will make different kinds of lifelong sacrifices than those of prior generations. Advances in technology and medicine mean people serving our country are more likely than ever before to survive combat, some with injuries that were previously unendurable. Despite weapons becoming deadlier and more destructive, the mortality rate for those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan was only about 10% in contrast to 24% in Vietnam and 30% in World War 2.
Post traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury are the signature wounds of the current generation of veterans, yet our society's collective understanding of these disabilities is often wildly misinformed and misunderstood, especially as currently only 1% of our population is serving. Our service members and veterans also tend to acquire disabilities as young adults in the prime of their lives. Their experience demonstrates the reality that any of us, through trauma, accident, illness, or age, can and likely will acquire a disability at some point in our lives, that does not mean we could not be good parents. Yet despite overwhelming evidence, the parent’s disabilities are no less fit and that children need both parents in their lives, parents with disabilities, especially mental health or intellectual disabilities, unfairly lose custody or parenting time at alarming rates due to discrimination. This is not an issue that's unique to veterans, it cuts across all demographics. But many of our clients have expressed regret about seeking mental health or substance use treatment because it has later been used against them in custody matters. Survivors of domestic violence also report staying in abusive relationships out of fear of losing their children because of their disability, and some of our clients have had to deal with both of these concerns simultaneously.
This pending Bill would require the probate and family and juvenile courts to determine if a parent's disability causes actual harm to a child based on evidence and not assumptions. It reduces stigma for parents with disabilities, will promote utilization of mental and physical health treatment and provide information to parents that's critical on how to address any of the court's legitimate parenting concerns arising2673 out of the disability. Parents with disabilities can be powerful examples of hope, resilience, determination, and adaptability for their children, qualities that it's in every child's best interest to have modeled in their lives, and disabled veterans have already sacrificed so much, so have their children. It's time we take steps to make sure their relationship is not one more thing that they have to give up because of the lasting consequences of their service to our country and our Commonwealth. Massachusetts is behind states2701 such as Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia in enacting these protections among many others. So, on behalf of Veterans Legal Services and the veterans we serve, we urge you to support this Bill and report it favorably. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much to each of you for your testimony. Any2718 questions from the committee? Okay.2720 Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - I see that we have, leader Peek and Russ Ave Kane here. Did you wanna come up and testify?
REP PEAKE - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, my colleagues in the House, good to see everybody. Thank you very much for taking us out of turn, we are truly appreciative of that. My colleague Rep Kane and I are the co-lead House sponsors on House 1713, and we are here today to speak in favor of the Bill, an act to ensure legal parentage equality. Being aware of the public that's in the room, we'll try to be brief, but hopefully impactful in our statements. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So, parentage, just briefly, is the legal status
SPEAKER1 - Skate leader. Okay. I think we're also being joined by senators here, reverend Tanya. My apologies.
SPEAKER25 - Now we really show the broad the broad support we have. We have Democrats and Republicans and House members and Senate members. So, I think it’s indicative of broad support, for this legislation.
PEAKE - So again, thank you for taking now this panel out of term, and you know my colleague, Sam Montano, also. So, what we're talking about here is parent child relationships, which give rise to rights such as custody, decision making, responsibilities, child support, health insurance. It's vital to children's well-being, it's vital strong and healthy families. When I started working with the advocates on this legislation, you really could have pushed me over with a feather because I thought as we're getting ready to celebrate 20 years of marriage equality in the Commonwealth, that once we had marriage equality, all of these rights regarding parentage just would flow from that. But what I have learned in getting up to speed on this is that we have a hodgepodge of case law, we have a hodgepodge of statutes, we have different decisions coming out of different courts across the Commonwealth. So, all of this is really crying for an update to the statutory framework that creates these rights and responsibilities for our parents here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So, this Bill, we feel, solves and addresses these problems.
It satisfies constitutional requirements, I think later today, you'll be hearing from the Attorney General's office on that subject. Provides a clear path to parentage for children born through assisted reproduction, provides a clear path to parentage and protections for all involved for children born through surrogacy. By the way, I bet, when a lot of this law was originally written, there wasn't assisted reproduction, there wasn't surrogacy. So, again, it's time that we get out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. It expands the voluntary acknowledgment of the parentage process, the administrative route to parentage that more children are protected from the moment of birth, strengthens protections for children of de facto parents, and ensures our parentage laws are fair and nondiscriminatory. Now you might have heard, with the Bill that was filed last session, there was some controversy among the very large coalition of people who have come together to help draft this. Several very important things have happened since last year's version was filed. What was filed this time around, first of all, a lot of work was done before we filed it in January address those concerns that were raised, and beyond that, the MPA coalition initiated a mediation process with the assistance of retired SJC justice and, PNF court justice, Nan Duffly, to work on and develop a framework for some additional language and some amendments, which we will be happy to share with the committee so that your staff and the committee members can see that and give further work to it.
So, in my view, we now have a framework with which we can move forward, and the concerns that were raised, I think in the work that was done prior to the filing of the Bill, as well as the work that has done since then, 20 hours, multiple meetings. This was some serious pencil sharpening that happened in connection with this mediation process. This legislation provides more protections to address the concerns raised and Bills in any other state where a parentage act has passed, including Connecticut and Maine. So, I think, I know, now is the time for us to act to protect our families, not only here in Massachusetts, but as they travel from state to state, or one parent may travel and the other remain here, they'll clear up all of that. You can't pick up the paper in the morning without realizing that the country has become a scary place for the LGBTQ community, and we have always been a beacon of hope and equality and the first in marriage equality. We will not be the first in the parentage Act, it has been enacted by several other states, but it's time for us to now stand up and take our place and say, yes, we're going to stand up for LGBTQ families and, really, for all families across the Commonwealth.
REP KANE - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Thank you, Rep Peake, and thank you, Chairs Day and Eldridge and committee members for having us here today. I'm very pleased to be co presenting, House 1713, the Mass parentage act with leader Peake in the House and with, Senator Cyr and Senator Tarr in the Senate. I'm also proud to share that as House Chair of the Women's Caucus, this is one of our endorsed Bills this session, and we are very hopeful to see it advance as well. There's nothing more central to the well-being and stability of a child than having a legal relationship to their parent because that relationship is the source of so many rights and protections. The lack of protections for children and families in our state have devastating consequences, like a child taken by an estranged parent to the West Coast away from her primary caregiver who is a non-bio parent and not returned until after three years of difficult litigation. A child removed from her home wrongfully by DCF with her non bio parent not being recognized as a parent or able to have counsel or participate in hearings, the child spending two years in foster care with strangers as a result. A child almost removed by DCF because the birth parent was hospitalized, and the non-birth parent had no legal ties and had to race to a court to get a guardianship to keep the child from foster care.
Or children who cannot get access to benefits or health insurance because of lack of a legal connection to their de facto parent. These are the stories from the MPA Coalition, where children and families who struggle with outdated statutes that leave their children unprotected. The SJC has asked the legislature more than once over 20 years to update our parented statutes and provide them with guidance. This Bill provides guidance and will create greater consistency in our courts. The MPA is based on the best practice model of legislation developed by nonpartisan uniform law commission, the UPA of 2017. The UPA underlies a majority of State parentage schemes. In its most recent version, UPA 2017, has already been enacted in Washington State, California, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, Colorado, and Vermont. Those states have also codified legal parentage for de facto parents. We have letters of support from legislator leaders in the two most recent states to pass parentage reform that speak to its importance of this work in securing children and families. The de facto parentage provision in this Bill already has the most rigorous standard in the country being proposed with a standing requirement, seven factors that must prove by clear and convincing evidence and additional protections for survivors of domestic violence. We respectfully hope committee will work with us swiftly to move this Bill forward this session. This Bill is important to so many families and children in Massachusetts, and it's important to me. I have a daughter who is part of the LGBT community and as she thinks about her family moving forward, I want to make sure that she has the same protections that my other children will when they form their families. Thank you very much for your consideration.
SEN CYR - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Thank you so much, Chairman Eldridge and Chairman Day. I want to recognize and ask, Senator Joe Comerford, who's with us to stand with us as well. Senator Brownsberger would be with us, but he's presiding over the session in the Senate, and, indeed, you're hearing, a united voice. I see Representative Scanlon here as well from the LGBTQ caucus, pleading, demanding, begging for swift action. Our current parentage laws are heterocentric, and they leave LGBTQ plus families like mine and our kids in a horrible position. Massachusetts was one of the first states to recognize LGBTQ plus people in our government, we were the first state in equal marriage, but we've been resting on our laurels and this is an example of that. Our parentage laws are over 40 years old, they are archaic, and they're leaving families in vulnerable positions, especially families who do not have the resources to do the legal due diligence. This is personal, this is personal to me and to my family. My sister and sister-in-law had to jump through complicated and expensive legal hoops to ensure that my nephew, when he was born 4.5 years ago, had the security of having a legal parentage relationship with both of his moms, particularly if they traveled out of state.
Actually, this weekend, I was in California, I just returned yesterday for a baby shower, I donated sperm, two friends of mine asked me to donate sperm to them, they're building a family. There's a baby that's going to be due, coming in January. If that family lived in Massachusetts and not in California, they would be having to pursue the same legal protections to ensure that those two parents are the legal parents. If you talk to our colleague, Representative Jack Patrick Lewis, he speaks quite frequently that he and his husband carry the birth certificates of their children when they travel out of state. This is happening to families in Massachusetts, I think most people in Massachusetts would be appalled that this is still the case here, and our Commonwealth has a tremendous diversity of families. Families are formed in many ways, including genetic connection, adoption, assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and voluntary acknowledgement. According to the CDC, we have here in Massachusetts the highest percentage of births through assisted reproduction in the United States, 5.6% of all births in 2020, that number is rising, and nearly one in three LGBTQ adults in the United States are raising children under the age of 18.
So, we have a responsibility, an urgent responsibility to provide stability and legal protections for these families, particularly at a time where, you know and very unfortunately, a number of states are moving to strip the rights of LGBTQ people and LGBTQ families. We've seen this not only happen state legislatures, but we're also3421 seeing it happen in the courts where3423 marital presumption is not being recognized as it should. State courts in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Idaho have all recently had cases with outcomes that stripped a non-genetic LGBTQ plus mother of that marital presumption of parentage. So, we need this urgently and desperately, we have worked in good faith to try to reach some compromise here. The time of compromise is gone, I don't know how we can go another day with families here in Massachusetts living with the very real uncertainty and stability of not having that parentage. We really urge you, we plead with you to swiftly dispose of this Bill with a favorable review so we can bring it to a vote in both of our chambers, have a bipartisan support of this, and our brilliant,3471 openly LGBTQ Governor herself can sign this into law. Thank you, and we're glad to answer any questions you may have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Did any legislators here standing want to testify as well? Or
SPEAKER11 - I am
SPEAKER26 - happy to be3482 represented
SPEAKER5 - by the Excellent.
SPEAKER1 - Excellent. Thank you so much. Oh, thank you, representative Khan. Thank you so much for your very moving remarks. Are there any questions from the committee members? Revson Scanlon?
REP SCANLON - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Thank you. I just want to thank all of you for your testimony here today. I'm very proud to be from Massachusetts, and when I think about what makes our state great, it's our families and our family dynamics are changing and have changed over the past many years, and it's time that our laws reflect that, and I think that's exactly what this Bill does. I've3531 been happy to work with Rep Khan and many of you on this issue, and I'm proud to stand with you, and I hope we can get this Bill out. I think when it comes to the concerns that we've heard about from time to time, if there are real concerns, I think we would have heard those from other states. As far as I've heard, I don't see there being any major problems. So, I hope we get this off the ground, and I hope we get this out of committee as soon as possible, and I'm proud to stand with you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Carlson Scanlon. Appreciate it. Thank you all for coming for the committee. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER25 - Checking it out of turn.
SPEAKER28 - Yep. Thank
SPEAKER25 - you for3578 holding. You.
SPEAKER4 - Yeah. Does she want to testify?
SPEAKER1 - Representative Khan, did you also want to testify in a separate bill?
SPEAKER25 - Yes.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Please come before the committee.
SPEAKER29 - Okay.
REP KHAN - HB 1601 - Chair Day, Chair Eldridge, thank you very much for taking me out of turn and to the committee. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today on House 1601, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities in family and juvenile court proceedings. Parents with3630 disabilities, especially psychiatric or intellectual disabilities lose3634 custody or parenting rights at alarming rates due to disability discrimination. These parents also experience higher rates of child welfare involvement, and family separation. With 4,400,000 parents with disabilities in the United States, the call for protection of their rights could not be louder. House 1601 will protect families by keeping them together whenever possible and providing parents with disabilities the necessary resources and support. This Bill requires courts to determine if a parent's disability causes actual harm to a child based on evidence, not assumptions, explain in writing if a parent's disability is a negative factor in custody and parenting time3685 decisions and assess if3687 the harm can be avoided with adaptive equipment or supportive services for the parent.
Additionally, this Bill will not cost the Commonwealth any additional money and may potentially save taxpayer dollars by preventing unnecessary foster placements. The separation of a child from their parents has detrimental long-term effects to a child's health and well-being. Placing a child in foster care opens them up to experiences of trauma and life altering effects that permanently affect their livelihood. It is imperative that we do our duty in protecting these children and their families. As of January, 24 states have actually passed, legislation protecting the rights of disabled parents, Massachusetts should be next. So, thank you so much for your consideration of important legislation. As I was standing here, I also want to briefly mention that I hope to be recorded that I am in strong support of House 1713 on parentage reform in Massachusetts, which is much needed. I refiled last session's Bill, and I also support this session, the shorter version filed by my colleagues Rep Peake and Rep Kane. So, thank you very SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
much.
Thank
SPEAKER1 - you so much, Representative Khan. Appreciate it. Any questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate you coming for the committee.
So there was a panel that I think we're awaiting a couple people, for3781 after 2, house 3591 filed by representative Garcia, an act relative to standard procedures in probate court, and the in person panel included Caitlin Burgess, Manuel Tesh, and Ismelda Barida?
Good afternoon.
SPEAKER30 - Okay.
CAITLYN BURGESS - GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES - HB 3591 - HB 3595 - HB 3596 - Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the judiciary committee. My name is Caitlyn Burgess, I live in East Boston, Massachusetts. I'm an attorney, and I represent immigrant children that are residents to Massachusetts who are ultimately seeking federal immigration relief in the form of special immigrant juvenile status. The purpose of the statute that's already been enacted in Massachusetts is to provide for the protection and welfare of children who have reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse of animal and neglect or similar reason under Massachusetts law and for whom it's not their best interest to return to their parents' country of nationality or their last habitual residence. Currently, there's a gap in the addressing in the law, House 3594, an act relative to jurisdiction and paternity actions. There are laws right now which guide service of parentage actions, children who are products of sexual assault or have unknown fathers due to abandonment at birth face obstacles to obtaining this relief that they are seeking before the court, which they clearly faced abandonment and neglect under the law due to the inability to serve the defendant who's not listed on the birth certificate. Service by Massachusetts law currently is required to be in hand or if the parent lives in the jurisdiction of the state.
Otherwise, the parent that's not listed on the birth certificate has to sign a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage, which requires a child or custodial parent to confront their rapists to attempt to have them recognize a child product of rape seeking relief before the court. The majority of children that are seeking this relief are coming from the Northern Triangle in Central America with countries having about a 98% impunity rate for sexual and gender-based crimes, making it an unfortunately hard reality that children are often born out of rape. Registration of birth in those countries is also optional, it requires parents to go to public ministries to formally recognize the children, with fathers often not recognizing children and not having any repercussions as child support laws are not enforced, mainly due to pervasive patriarchal culture, which allows women to be seen as subservient to men. This act would allow for some of the most vulnerable children to receive relief for which current rules of service in the state cause a gap to obtaining for them under the law which they are otherwise eligible. As to H 3595, an act relative to special immigrant juveniles, judges across counties use their discretion to provide a sentence to and plead relief to children in the form of probation services, which the current statute allows for, that they may be ordered.
However, federal statute requires that this relief is ordered by the courts or a custodial placement is not warranted because the children3932 are between the ages of 18 and 21. Under 8 CFR R 20411 S 5I a and b. USCIS consent is required for the designation of this relief once the predicate order is by the probate and family court, so it requires that the courts order this relief. The probation services are outlined within MGL Chapter 119 Section 39 MD, there's something that is required, and so we ask that it be changed from may to shall to be able to allow these children to seek this relief. As to House 3596, an act relative to service of process. This act would allow for children whose parents live in rural areas, or actively dodge service to allow the court to prescribe means that give adequate notice in these actions such as WhatsApp service or notification through Facebook Messenger to be able to jump into the 21st century3976 and allow for these children to seek the relief that they're3980 otherwise eligible for. As to House, 3591, an act relative to standard procedure in court, there's already protocols for complaints for dependency and judgment sought before this court. However, the judges often don't follow these prescribed procedures and protocols and allow for them to have discretion and obvious and ignore relief that is available to these children. Thank you.
ISMELDA HERRERA - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 3591 - HB 3594 - HB 3595 - HB 3596 - Good afternoon. My name is Ismelda Doria Herrera, and I live in Boston, Massachusetts. Thank you, Chairman and members of the judiciary committee for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm here to ask you to support the following Bills; H 3591, H 3594, H 3595, and H 3596. I hope my story gives an insight into my journey growing up as an undocumented immigrant. I was born in El Salvador by race in the US since I was 10 years old. I grew up in East Boston and attended Boston Public Schools from 6th grade up to my senior year of high School. Growing up, it was difficult being raised with just my dad in a foreign country with a new language because I had to assume more responsibilities as an elder sister and daughter. In order to help my family, I had to be self-sufficient by becoming educationally enthusiastic, being involved in sports in my community, and providing for my family. At home, due to my dad's language, my daily life consists of translating important documents I had no knowledge of, and I accompanied my dad to places I didn't know of. He was so proud of me that all this made me want to advocate not only for me, but for my youngest brother. I had proposed to myself that going to college would be a way forward, I had planned out my future, but my reality changed when I found out because of my immigrant status, I couldn't reach my goals. I had no knowledge if I was eligible for immigrant racial relief nor had knowledge of special immigrant juvenile law.
By denied the rate of high school, I had become more involved in the process of how to apply for college, yet at some point, I had lost confidence and was uncertain on my future. Had I now faced the reality of the challenges as an undocumented immigrant student, such as I need a social security to get a job, drive, work, seeking financial aid, etcetera. I struggle to find support in my family and in my school, so I became involved in programs related to immigrants to overcome undocumented status barriers, that still didn't let me too way to get a green card where work permit. After I graduated, I was anxious and frustrated as to how was I going to figure out my life by having a new plan in my hands. Was furthering my education after high school in hopes that there was going to be a change in law that I will become aware of and qualified for. I became overwhelmed when I turned 20 years old and was ready to pursue a career, yet I couldn't pursue it because I didn't have a status. I was not focused on how to get a green card, and I was seeking an immigration lawyer. I became aware of the special immigrant juvenile relief as I was almost turning 21, which felt like a miracle to me. This meant granting opportunity for me and my brother as well as be able to contribute to my country and my state. I'm aware now that I could have found about this relief about six years ago if I had done so. I would have gone to college, pursue a medical degree, and it will be my senior year. I'm sure there are many kids with similar stories and different backgrounds who are facing similar challenges, preventing them from achieving their dreams or accomplishing more due to legal limitations. By passing the legislation proposed, you will be helping many children across the Commonwealth like me to pursue higher education. You will be giving them a fighting chance4201 to4201 pursue4201 their4201 American4201 dream. Thank you.
MANUEL TESHE - CITY OF CHELSEA - HB 3591 - HB 3594 - HB 3595 - HB 3596 - Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the judiciary committee. First and foremost, I want to thank you for opening up the space. I'm here today to ask for your support on the following Bills; H 3591, H 3594, H 3595, and H 3596. All the aforementioned Bills have one thing in common; they're all centered around the benefit of children in the Commonwealth. As you heard from attorney Caitlyn Burgess, each of those Bills provide a smoother process of the law that would allow children and families to receive protection and legal status in the state and also in the country. Currently, there is a law in Massachusetts that allows children to receive that protection, signed by a probate and family court Judge, and those are the orders you take to immigration for you to able to be able to get4260 legal status, and again, that4262 is specifically, just for children under 21 years old. As4266 you heard from Ismelda, the lives of children are directly impacted not only in their present moment, but also in their future, and our future as well.
Think of the amazing scientists, lawyers, or even political leaders that we have missed on because the system failed them, because their hopes were shut down at a very early age. In my immigration work, I have met countless children, and I cannot capture in words the pain they carry with them. The fact that they do not have their parents taking care of them. The reason why I stand here today as an elected member of the Chelsea City Council is because my dreams were not shut down because I had the opportunity to pursue them when I came to the United States 10 years ago. Many of you, if not all of you, ran on platforms to protect and give a voice to the voiceless and to make things better and make progress, today, you have that power to not just change words on paper, but to reimagine the future of millions of children and thereby reimagining the future of our great Commonwealth as well. Thank you so much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate the 3 of you used to come before the committee to testify. Are there any questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Okay. I believe we're back on House 1601, Senate 1037 by rep Kahn and senator Lovely. And I think the next, person to testify virtually is Maura Sullivan from The Arc of Massachusetts. Is Moore here?
MAURA SULLIVAN - ARC OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, Chair Day, Chair Eldridge, and members of the joint Committee. What a powerful hearing so far. My name is Maura Sullivan, I am the director of4370 government affairs and health policy for the Arc of Massachusetts. Massachusetts. I also run a health care professional training program that addresses health disparities and attitudinal barriers to care for people4383 with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and family and juvenile court proceedings. I speak today on behalf of the Arc of Mass, and a reminder is that our mission for the last 70 years is to enhance the lives of people with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities or IDD through advocacy for self-determination and equity across all aspects of Society. I will focus on this Bill as it affects people with IDD. The need for this legislation is an example of the systemic and societal bias that the Arc aims to eliminate. As you heard so clearly from Rep Khan, this Bill will help to resolve that pervasive discrimination experienced by parents with IDD, requiring the courts to determine whether a parent's disability actually causes harm to their child by requiring the written findings.
A parent's disability alone should not be the basis for the court preventing access to custody of their child, this is Illegal discrimination. It's an understatement to say that widespread bias and misconceptions exist that all parents with IDD cannot care for their children. Parents with IDD can provide incredible care, wonderful models of strength and resilience, creativity and compassion, and we all need more of that. Our4480 welfare agencies and courts often presume that they're unable to benefit from family preservation and reunification supports and services. However, studies have documented programs that have successfully taught, of course, parenting skills to cognitively delayed parents, they can learn, apply new knowledge, and maintain those skills. Nevertheless, they continue to face all the barriers we can put up, especially those parents with multiple marginalized4510 identities. Parents with4512 IDD have their children permanently removed by child welfare at rates ranging from 30% to 80%. These child welfare systems and courts are often ill equipped to work with parents with IDD and their families. In my own experience working with healthcare professionals, they're equally ill equipped and uninformed. 80% of doctors feel that people with disabilities have a poor quality of life, the bias is pervasive across society, and this is why these parents need our legal protections. So, the Arc stands ready to be of additional service to the committee as needed on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration of this Bill that's had your past support as well. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much. The next panel, which is also virtual, Betsy Mich excuse me, from the United Arc, and Susan Jones.
SPEAKER34 - Hi.
BETSY MISCH - THE UNITED ARC - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Thank you for the opportunity to allowing us to speak today. I'm here to express my strong support for the Senate Bill 1037, House Bill 1601, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and juvenile court proceedings. My name is Betsy Misch, and I live in Holyoke, Mass, I am the director of family and youth services for the United Arc in Turner's Falls. My particular area of expertise is supporting parents living with disabilities within the child welfare system. I have been doing this work for 25 years and4611 have worked with hundreds and hundreds of4613 families. I have been part of the disability community since I was born as I have an older sister who lives with a disability, I am currently her co guardian. While my sister does not have any children, if she had, I would have fought for her ability to raise her own children. There are 4,400,000 parents living with disabilities in America today, roughly one in 10 children have a parent living with a disability, and too often, these families face discrimination within the child welfare and justice systems.
We have laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and almost all areas of the public sphere. But when it comes to the ability to raise one's own children, the law says that it's okay to discriminate and just for having a disability, not because the parent was proven unfit. For typical parents, the state has a mandate to prove that they are unfit, but parents living with disabilities are not afforded this. The law has prejudged them just due to their disability; this is discrimination. The ADA in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability-based discrimination, yet, under Mass law, prohibit disability-based discrimination. It is unjust to judge people on how they look or their IQ, it is unjust and unfair to judge people on their diagnosis, it is illegal. As a society,4703 as a Massachusetts Commonwealth, we must transcend discrimination and affirm the rights of all parents to be judged on their abilities, not on their diagnosis. Let us take this opportunity today to affirm that Mass stands for equal treatment under the law. Thank you for the time, and listening to my experience. I urge you to vote H 1601 and S 1037 favorably out of committee. Thank you.
SUSAN JONES - THE UNITED ARC - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Hello. My name is Susan Jones. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I live in Greenfield, Mass. I'm on the board of directors of the United Arc here in Turners' Falls. Prior to my retirement and joining the board, I worked for the agency for 37 years and helped create the positive parenting program, one of the few programs in the state and country that support parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I have supported parents with disabilities during their4764 various and Parenting journeys from supporting parents who have had4768 their children removed, attended court proceedings with them, supervised visits with their parents and their children that were in foster care. I've witnessed reunifications4778 and terminations of parental rights. I've observed some parents completing all the tasks on their service plan and their children still not being returned to them to4786 what I have perceived as the what if factor. What if the parent gets sick and doesn't have support? What if the child becomes smarter than the parent? I've also been with parents as they showed the ultimate meaning of love by giving their children permission to love their adopted parents and call their mom and dad by heartbreakingly letting them go. I've asked two parents I've supported over the years this question; how does it feel to be a parent living with a disability knowing because you have that disability, your child could be removed from you? The first parent, a single dad who lives in Turner Falls, replied, I have two children, a 14-year-old daughter that lives with me and a 10-year-old son that lives with his mom I see often, the thought of losing my daughter is a nightmare, I never want to experience. Knowing that disability plays a role and whether we can be considered effective parents is hurtful.
I try to be a good parent even though I am limited by my disability. I think my daughter is more compassionate and likely to give back to the community because of my life experiences and the lesson that taught her. I try to show them what it means to be a loving parent. I do everything I can so my kids can grow up to be good and kind people, which has nothing to do with me having a disability. The second parent I asked is a single mother of three adult sons living in Athol, Mass. While my kids were growing up, I got help from the United Art guiding our children, department developmental services, DDS, and for a brief time, I had an open case when my boys were little with the department of children and families. I was afraid I'd lose my boys because I have a disability, especially when they became involved. It made me feel scared and afraid to ask for help. When I did get help, it often wasn't enough. When DCF came into our lives, I lived every day being terrified all the time that they were going to take my boys. They didn't, but the fear never left me, I was one of the lucky ones. My boys are now adults, and I'm so relieved no one can take them from me now. I watched over the years the system slowly improves from closing institutions 766, 504, ADA to, in our state, when DCF and DDS have begun to work together in supporting parents with disabilities. Passage of this legislation is the last piece of the puzzle that children4931 aren't removed from their families based on the parent having a disability without being given a fair4937 chance to parent or receive appropriate services that provide modifications, accommodation, and eliminating bias. Thank you for my opportunity to talk to you today about passing Bill H 1601 and S 1037 favorably. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Next person signed up to testify virtually is Justin Salisbury. Justin Salisbury.
SPEAKER35 - Yes.
JUSTIN SALISBURY - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon. Thank you very much to Chairs Eldridge and Day and members of the committee. My name is Justin Saulsberry, I'm here testifying on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts on H 1601 and S 1037. We are in support, but we are also requesting a small and simple amendment. We're very grateful to Representative Khan and Senator Lovely for introducing this important legislation, and we've been glad to be a part of trying to move it forward. On lines 20 and 48 of these matching Bills, there are pieces of this Bill that reference a preponderance of evidence instead of clear and convincing evidence like the rest of the Bill. The amendment that we request is that, specifically on lines 20 and 48, that we up those evidentiary standards so that it becomes homogenized so that the entire bill is using clear and convincing evidence. We understand that in certain parts of the law, it is customary for standards for the overall decision of the court to be based on a preponderance of the evidence, but if we are specifically narrowing the conversation to using a parent's disability to make the decision, we want the standard of evidence there to be clear and convincing evidence. All the same logic to use clear and convincing evidence everywhere else in the Bill is applicable there as well. We understand that DCF, the family courts, and juvenile courts are frequently framed as the bad guys in these situations, and they're often unable to tell their side of story because it's all confidential information about a child, and we have great respect for the difficult situation that a lot of them are in.
We're not here to vilify them, but we are here to try to create procedural safeguards that will help to protect us from implicit bias. Because these implicit biases are not specifically addressed within the system and people work within the system, they bring those individual implicit biases into the system and becomes a systemic bias. So, the response, this treatment, the solution needs to be a systemic solution. We are a minority group in society, and frequently, our minority group status is used against us when people don't even really have to5107 directly talk about it. They can wink and nod, and they can say things like, given the situation and everyone5113 who's there knows exactly what they're talking about, they're talking about our disabilities, but they're not forced to articulate what exactly they mean. Everywhere we go, we experience low expectations from people around us, people that mean well often but who simply do not understand what it's like to live with our disabilities, who do not understand our capacity. We have ways of doing things, we are not stuck in whatever knowledge we have when we become disabled at the beginning. We have the ability to learn like other humans, and we develop special skills and techniques that allow us to perform tasks and achieve the things that we want in our lives. So, again, we ask, please, that we use the evidentiary standard homogeneously throughout the Bill of clear and convincing evidence. Regardless of whether an amendment is made, this is still a great step forward, we're very grateful for the committee considering this Bill, and we hope that you will consider our requested amendment.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Next person signed up to testify in this bill is Jennifer Bertrand, Mass Development and Disabilities Council.
JENNIFER BERTRAND - MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COUNCIL - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge and Chair Day. My name is Jennifer Bertrand, I am the disability policy specialist with the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council, the MDDC. I'm here today to provide some information regarding H 1601 and Senate Bill, 1037. The MDDC is federally mandated to provide information to educate policymakers about the intent of legislation and its impact on people with developmental disabilities and their families. People with developmental disabilities or DD want the5233 same things in life as people without disabilities, parenting is a widely held human desire and people decide to have children for many reasons. Despite legal protections contained in the US constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities5252 Act, parents with DD are disproportionately referred to child welfare services and permanently separated from their children. The right to parent has not been accessible for parents with DD even though they are no more likely to be unfit or pose a risk to their child. One reason for this is because people with disabilities continue to face significant societal discrimination and prejudice often based on ableist assumptions and misinformation, these are harmful to people with disabilities. Parents with DD face many barriers to parenting, including access to reproductive health care and adaptive technology and equipment in obtaining necessary support with parenting tasks.
Some parents are reluctant to ask for help because they're fearful of losing their parental rights, and we're going to hear from a council member in a little while about that. A recent issue brief titled access, autonomy, and dignity, people with disabilities and the right to parent revealed people of color who experience disability faced even greater challenges to raising a child due to limited access to high quality culturally responsive prenatal health care. This has resulted in disproportionately worse maternal health outcomes and harm to bipoc birthing people. The National Council on Disability, NCD, report rocking the cradle revealed parents with disabilities are the only distinct community of Americans who struggle to retain custody of their children. Data highlighted in Rooted in Rights Reports show that the removal rates are as high as 70% to 80% for psychiatric disability, 40% to 80% for intellectual disability, with 13% of parents with physical disabilities reporting discrimination, I've experienced that, in their custody cases. Parents with disabilities are also more likely to lose custody of their children after divorce. Parents should not be denied the5377 right to raise their children solely on the basis of disability. The MDDC believes that this legislation will help further the rights5387 of people with developmental disabilities, and require the court to use evidence, rather than assumptions. Thank you for your time.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, miss Bertrand. Any questions from the committee? K. K. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Next person to speak, Tamara Huntley, virtually, Mass Development Disabilities Council.
SPEAKER37 - Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Yes. Please go ahead.
TAMARA HUNTLEY - MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COUNCIL - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon. My name is Tamara Huntley, and I live in Montville, Massachusetts. I'm testifying on House Bill 1601, Senate Bill 1037. It's been a rough road for me and my late husband as parents with cerebral palsy, because of the discrimination we have faced. As a person with a disability, I am judged, people make assumptions about my abilities because of the way I speak and the way I move. When my son Spencer was born, the doctor assumed he had CP because both of his parents have CP. I had to tell the doctor that CP is not a genetically inherited disability. There were many times when people and even family members questioned, how was I going to care for my children? I was also told again and again that I shouldn't have children, their comments and questions made me doubt myself as a parent. At Spencer's first doctor visit, our daughter Emily, who was four years old at the time, ran out of the doctor's office in front of us, the nurse reported us to DCF. She assumed our kids were at risk because we have physical disabilities. We received a surprise visit from DCF, they conducted a thorough investigation, thankfully, the claim was dropped.
After the incident, I consistently felt fearful my kids would be taken away. This is the number one fear of parents with disabilities. Becoming a parent had been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. People with disabilities should have the dignity and right to bear. Courts need to use evidence, not assumptions to determine if a parent's disability is a negative factor in raising a child. Requiring the courts to consider accommodations will also help parents like me care for my children successfully and independently. Today, my kids are thriving young adults. Emily is 19 years old in High school graduate in a transition program, and she isn't gained fully employed. My son, Spencer, is a 15-year-old sophomore in high school who loves sports. People with disabilities should not have to worry about losing their parental rights when they ask for help, they have just as much to offer their children as parents without disabilities do. This legislation will help ensure the right to parent as well as equity and justice for people with disabilities. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much, miss Seidl. Thank you so much for your time, and thank you for telling your story. Greatly appreciate it. Are there questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Next person on this legislation in person is Samantha Fine. Samantha Fine.
SAMANTHA FINE - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, members of the judiciary committee. My name is Samantha Fine, and I'm a resident of Cambridge, Mass. I work as an artist, educator, and community organizer. I am here today to express my strong support of Senate Bill 1037 and House Bill 1601, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities in family and juvenile court proceedings. I appreciate the opportunity to share my story. I was raised in a household by a father who has psychiatric disabilities, a psychiatric disability is a chronic condition that must be managed throughout one's lifetime, like asthma or diabetes. My dad has received various treatments over the years, and there have been periods when his symptoms returned. When I was a teenager, he was hospitalized and received inpatient treatment. For a period of time, he was unable to work and collected disability payments. I am blessed never to have been involved with the family court system. However, if I had, it's easy to see how his disability could be weaponized against him in a custody dispute. Psychiatric disabilities have long been socially stigmatized, depicted inaccurately by the media, and misunderstood by the general public. Parents like my father are often discriminated against and lose parental rights. It is unfairly assumed that just because someone has a psychiatric disability, that they aren't fit to parent, this simply isn't the case.
My father was the primary breadwinner of the family. He's an accomplished attorney who maintained his own practice for over 35 years. He was the assistant coach on my soccer team, he drove me to school in the mornings. I would argue that he is a more competent parent than many parents without psychiatric disabilities. No parent is perfect, growing up, there were times when my dad's disability created stress in the household. However, this stress pales in comparison to the stress of unnecessarily disrupting a child's relationship with their primary caregiver. This type of separation would have been absolutely devastating for both me and him and could have irreparably damaged our relationship. H 1601 and S 1037 will prevent discrimination against parents like my father. It requires written evidence of potential harm to the child if the parent's disability is to be considered a negative factor in custody decisions. This Bill ensures that custody decisions are based on actual evidence, not ableist assumptions or stereotypes about parents with psychiatric disabilities. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my experience. I urge you to vote H 1601 and S 1037 favorably out of committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thanks so much for the spine. Appreciate your testimony. Questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Virtually, we have Joe Bellil from Easterseals, Massachusetts, virtually.
JOE BELLIL - EASTER SEALS MASSACHUSETTS - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, Chairs Eldridge and Day, members of the joint committee on judiciary. My name is Joe Bellil, I'm Vice President of public affairs and youth services at Easter Seals of Massachusetts and I live in Holden. I'm here to support Senate Bill 1037 and House Bill 1601, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and family and juvenile court proceedings. ECCL believes that these Bills will provide a benefit to this building community by stopping some of the discriminatory practices that are happening. My wife and I5865 both have physical disabilities and have raised a child from birth to adulthood5869 in Massachusetts. While raising a son, we had in the back of our minds that we needed to be extra careful caring for our child and that we need to be careful what we said to certain professionals because we heard that the state was known to treat parents with disabilities differently. We heard parents with disabilities would have their children taken away from them just because they have a disability. We felt this is wrong, but at the same time, we did not want to ever lose our son, no parent should have to worry about that being treated like this.
These Bills would help prevent discrimination against parents with disabilities in custody cases by requiring written evidence of potential harm to the child if a parent's disability is to be used as a negative factor in a custody decision. Furthermore, the5918 court would be required to consider whether potential harm can be alleviated by adaptive equipment or supportive services. This Bill does not prevent courts from removing a child from a home if it's truly harmful. This is why this legislation is so important to me, we need to5936 make sure that people with disabilities are treated just5938 like people without disabilities when5940 it comes to all situations. We need this in writing so that it is clear that we should not be discriminating against anybody. Please support Senate Bill 1037 and House Bill 1601. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much, Joe. Good to see you. Any questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Next, we have a panel hybrid panel. Christine Roche, Disability Policy Consortium in Harry Weiss.
I think it's5974
SPEAKER21 - just his name.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. I was wondering if that was5976 you as well.
SPEAKER20 - Hello. Hello. My name is Christine. Well, I'm a mother a deaf mother, and to hear your thumb. Oh, boy. It happened, like, 97. They took my5991 kid. I don't know what's going on. Then I fired a car back up. But, boy, I think, done. Boy, I mean, he told me, we're gonna beat men. I don't quote unquote Is that6004 your medicine? You can't can't come home. I would or take 30 pills today for that year. I caught up watching, but I thought the president come my home. If you obtain that because of the report, it takes me to the rep. At the mid6020 title, pay it back. I'm not to to quit it. And before I move out, got6026 it back, That they're back online. They can't when my time's 14. And, you know, do it, behave, whatever. Go on. I don't put no tip. I don't want I'm glad I made misinformation. It the to the ball a dealer just because I could talk. That me I Everything? No. I could talk fine, same time. It's a forcing force. Don't want to end up blood if you get back on line. You did. Angering me do it. Do I put it on behalf? We have to not fight him either. And by 19,
SPEAKER5 - The cable code, we just
SPEAKER20 - got the team. Then I move on, and I went back to college, got off med at 30 pills today. No med fine. And I went to college, tried to keep it up. Hope to help other people have to really want to support them. For upload them to call for nothing. TTF Put that
SPEAKER5 - in me from working. Don't know my my own work because I'm a bad mother. I don't even know what they're talking about. Abid nothing. They filed my6091 kid in my life for everything. Don't6093 happen. How do you go back? My life. You wake my wake, Tucker. 30-day bill, they moved my body and a pen dirty. You know how much it's gonna cost? I'm fixing style to eat Guarantee, you've got a lamb over $11,000,000,000 army in the past. How you go? Who paid the cop? I'm on d. How can I move forward? It's half 3 years old to get back to my life. My son's 28 years old. Oh, you mean, wait from them. Please, powerful bill. Tell them your mother can't take care of my kid. Well, I need to know what's going on. You have done you have to have Power or what? We have the law. That's the law all we can. Human life, civil life, a d law. All these laws should protect out to what going on court or outside? Nothing at all. I'm not breaking them down. I can't play anything. I didn't call oh, but yeah. They never call me back. I don't want no idea. You need to do we pass those 2 bills. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much, miss Orch. Thank you6164 very much for your testimony. Really appreciate it, and so sorry what happened, your son. Are there any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank you so much.
Now we have virtually Rick Glassman from the Disability Law Center.
RICK GLASSMAN - DISABILITY LAW CENTER - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Good afternoon, Chairs Eldridge and Day. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. You've heard so much persuasive testimony this afternoon about two things; one is the lived experience people with disabilities, parents with disabilities who have come to fear DCF and the belief that they have experienced discrimination and I think a persuasive account that that that in fact has happened. Then the other thing that you've heard is, how modest the ask is in this Bill to have clear and convincing evidence to have a nexus between the disability and the harm, to show that accommodations would not change things, to have written findings. Rather than rehash any of that, I wanted to see if I could make a different contribution and speak specifically to some problems in state law, which make this Bill particularly important. So, in 2001, the appeals court rendered a decision in a case called adoption of Gregory that has said, essentially, that ADA rights end when the termination proceeding begins, that the person needs to assert these rights beforehand, but the court will not entertain those ADA arguments when the parents' rights are being terminated. That decision was, I think, reinforced in a 2003 case called Terrence, and while there's been a little bit of softening of that hard-line approach in three other cases, West, Alada, and Lenore in subsequent years, we have a very constrained view of what the ADA provides by way of protection in child welfare proceedings and this creates two problems. The first problem is a very practical one, which is that if parents with disabilities are able to or are being asked to assert rights to accommodation before termination, they have no access to legal help at that point.
There's been no court appointed lawyer, and so people are left floundering on their own in the system, and then their failure to ask for those accommodations in a timely way becomes problematic. The second and larger problem is that there is tension, if not contradiction, between the decisions of the appeals court and the very agencies that are charged with enforcing the ADA. Particularly, the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services. I will call your attention to three things. One, in terms of 504, which has similar provisions, you could look at the new regulations of HHS proposed just in the middle of September. But then beyond that, you could look at the joint memorandum in 2015 between HHS and the Department of Justice and then the findings of the Department of Justice in Massachusetts that say, during the department's investigation, DCF suggested based on adoption of6365 Gregory, the ADA may not be raised as6367 it defends the proceedings to terminate parental rights because such proceedings do6371 not constitute a service unto the ADA. It goes on to say the legal conclusion, the termination proceedings are not covered by the ADA simply cannot be square with the US Supreme Court's pronouncement in Yeske, that's a landmark 98 decision. So my point here is that we have a problem with state law and, filling incomparable kinds of rights to what the ADA should provide through state legislation It's sorely needed, and this Bill does just that. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much, mister Glassman. Any questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. We have a couple of, people that just signed in, including 1 on, The bill before us, Stacy Hart. Stacy Hart.
SPEAKER2 - Miss chairs, miss Margaret Perches. I just want to recognize that representative Sullivan Almeida has joined us virtually as well.
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you.
SPEAKER17 - My own chair is without
SPEAKER1 - Thanks so much for coming for the committee.
STACY HART - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1601 - SB 1037 - Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences. I want to show my strong support for Senate Bill 1037 and the House Bill 1601, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and family in juvenile court. My name is Stacy Hart, I live in Boston. I'm a disability advocate with lived experience as a person with a disability and the mom of two small children, one of whom is on the autism spectrum. I'm submitting testimony because as many people have spoken about already, I live in fear of people's objective that a woman with a disability can't be effective engaged parent. I'm worried that one day, I will be at the mercy of the court system that has the outspoken beliefs that people who look like me, move like me, and speak like me, luck the ability to be good parents. My work in the disability field has sadly exposed me to many cases of which disability is used to show incompetence such as mothers facing divorce from a partner who doesn't have a diagnosed disability or negative interactions with child services. So many women and men are struggling to navigate the impenetrable office of Child Protective Services, an institution which sadly seems to struggle with understanding the very human moments that many parents have.
I believe in the justice system and hold myself to a high standard of care and safety for my6574 children. Unfortunately, though, it is a core theme in6578 the court of human nature that people cast judgment and make decisions about other people's capacity to care on a daily basis. Society fails to see people with disabilities as competent caregivers and parents. So, it doesn't consider creative solutions to help ensure that people with disabilities can provide the care while taking care of their own mental and physical health. For me, running into this particular wall of unconscious bias began during pregnancy when my OB GYN wanted me to see the hospital social worker. During our stay in the NICU, the OT came by to see me about my setup at home as did the social worker. For the first couple weeks, nurses asked us twice a day, a shift change, how we would take care of that baby. Doing the math, we were asked about our ability to care for our son more than 20 times in a very short period of time. Though our son was born after the mandatory referral for early intervention, we were referred to early intervention anyway because the referral is at the discretion of the hospital. We never said no to assistance because we did not want to appear incompetent or disagreeable. So, I strongly ask you to consider moving this Bill forward. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Sorry. Thank you so much for coming for the committee. Really appreciate it. Thanks for your patience too.
And then on a a different bill, senate 909, house 1782, Jed Hresco.
JED HERASCO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 909 - HB 1782 - Thank you. With my ex-wife, I co6713 parent two adult sons and a 13-year-old daughter. I'm a proud resident of6717 Brockton. I also have an adult goddaughter and great or grand goddaughter. I strongly support S 909 and H 1782, an act relative to child centered family law. We spent most of 2005 in family court, my goal was shared parenting, two houses, if you will, and it took a lot of effort, legal fees, and contentions to get there. Although it certainly felt prescriptive, our parenting plan protected our kids' access to both parents, protected our access to our kids and gave us the ground rules to co parent during that less friendly period. The coolness thought, and we learned to genuinely co parent. In 2010, my kid's mom gave birth to a daughter from another father, I'll call her by her nickname, Kiki. Bio dad was not present in the early years of her life, now even though we were a lot less rigid in terms of co-parenting by then, we still kept the midweek dinner because we all liked the routine, and that's how the bond started with Kiki. I would take her with me and the boys for dinner, to the park, etcetera. My kids' mom wanted to finish her bachelor's and asked if I would be her backup when it came to Kiki, that accelerated the relationship. Then her master's, more bonding. Before long, our attempts to name the relationship, such as uncle Jed, were overruled when Kiki started calling me daddy, and I accepted. Fast forward to the pandemic, my kids' mom works in a hospital that was on the front lines of Covid, no remote work option, but I was working from home, and I was able to have the kids exclusively during those uncertain times.
We avoided the daily fear of mom bringing Covid home from the hospital, and we avoided creating a vector back into the hospital. Since the pandemic, I've had my daughter four nights a week. Her biological Dad also lives in Brockton, I am able to facilitate weekly visits between the two of them. I would submit to you three points about our story. One, the bond between my daughter and myself only developed because I was already present through shared parenting. Secondly, kids get what they need emotionally from a parent only when they get substantial time with that parent, visitation doesn't cut it. Three, my kid's mom obviously, trusted me6845 enough as a parent to care for her biological child. So why the drama and expense for both of us battling in court? In hindsight, 2005 almost feels like about of temporary insanity, encouraged by law and a courthouse culture that promoted adversity and a winner take all mentality. One of the objections we've heard is, yes, some reform is needed, but your Bill is just too prescriptive, and that the trend in the legislature has been to move away from mandated outcomes and return more power to the bench. First of all, our Bill still gives the judge the final say, but also, how is every other weekend visitation plus the midweek dinner not prescriptive in effect? It may not be in any statute, but is it not the de facto policy if we do nothing? I also know that some of the other Bills before this committee are quite prescriptive, as you have already heard, and we are in favor of those Bills because we favor protecting the relationship of the child with the caring and loving adults in their life. We just would like to see it applied across the board. So, thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much for your time. Questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Now we're, going to move to, a bill which, the legislative authors have already spoken. House 1713, senate 9 4 7 filed by representatives Peake and Keene and senators here, an act to ensure legal parentage equality. So, we have a number of panels. The 1st panel in person is, Patience Crozier from GLPTQ EQ legal advocates and defenders, MPA Coalition, Jordan Budd, children of lesbians and gays everywhere. Thank you. Good afternoon.
SPEAKER41 - Good afternoon. It is such I've been told we're quiet, so I'm going to be loud. No. It is such an honor to be here. I'm thrilled to be here.
PATIENCE CROZIER - GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Good afternoon - My name is Polly Crozier as you know, my pronouns are she, her, and I'm here in a number of capacities. One is as a family lawyer who's represented with my own practice, children and families in Massachusetts. One is as director of family advocacy at GLAAD where I represent children and families nationwide in courts and legislatures. One is as a non-biological parent of children born, raised, and unfortunately adopted in Massachusetts. And finally, as co-founder along with Resolve New England of the MPOA coalition, which is over 50 organizations strong, many children and families who are all here with us today in spirit. This Bill ensures, as you know, parentage equality for all children in the Commonwealth. It's simple, and it's so important. You will hear today in a lot of written testimony, which I have with me, many of the harms inflicted in our state due to a lack of statutory means to protect parent child relationships. We currently operate in a system with unconstitutional aspects that render some of our children and families second class and outsiders. Sometimes the only recourse is for parents to adopt their own children, a burdensome, slow, expensive, and really humiliating process that isn't even accessible to all who need it. This bipartisan Bill has been revised and streamlined for this session, and it fills those gaps. You've already heard from our wonderful cosponsors about what the Bill does, so I'll just say it does a lot of really good things, it's been drafted very carefully with national experts and with experts from Massachusetts to align Massachusetts with best practices.
Without this Bill, again, particularly LGBTQ families and their children remain outsiders, and I would just say it is a terrifying time for LGBTQ few families in this country. The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision threatened to overturn national marriage equality. There remains a patchwork of parentage protections in states throughout the country, we've seen, as Senator Cyr said, state courts are failing to recognize the marital presumption of parentage for our families. Already cases have issued in Idaho, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. I'm currently working with lawyers on two cases in Louisiana and one in Ohio, this is really happening every day. We are taking a step back and we see extremist forces expanding their rhetoric to attack any family that isn't genetically connected or that's not a mother father family. Wanting to build and protect your family is a basic human hope that so many of us share, and we want the legislature and hope you will make a simple but profound statement that our laws protect all of the diverse families that are in this Commonwealth, some of whom we will hear from today. I think equality is really in our DNA. You know, this is the week, the 20th anniversary of the Goodrich decision and we remember the legislatures because it wasn't just the court, it was the legislature's key role in triumph in stopping the Constitutional amendments that sought to undermine equality. So, we hope you'll vote this Bill quickly out of committee, and we're here to help you.
JORDAN BUDD - COLAGE - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, and thank you for having us here today. My name is Jordan Budd, and I'm the executive director of Colage, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering and supporting children of LGBTQ parents. I'm writing on behalf of Colage in strong support of S 947, H 1713, an act to ensure legal parentage equality also known as the Massachusetts Heritage Act. For 30 years, Colage has been the only national organization dedicated to supporting children with one or more LGBTQ plus parents or caregivers, uniting them within a network of peers, and supporting and nurturing and empowering them to be skilled, self-confident, and just leaders in their communities. Each year, we co-host family week in Provincetown, Massachusetts, the largest gathering of LGBTQ plus families in the world, and many of our family’s7193 hail from the Commonwealth. We are committed to bringing about a world where children of LGBTQ plus parents are legally secure, respected and valued for who they are. The MPA supports this mission by ensuring that all children have equal access to secure legal relationships to their parents. This Bill addresses harmful gaps in current Massachusetts law that directly undermines the welfare of children with queer parents. The MPA will protect LGBTQ plus families and ensure that our families are recognized as equals in the state of Massachusetts. As it stands, the laws of Massachusetts disadvantage thousands of children simply because their parents are queer.
In fact, Massachusetts is now the only state in New England without updated parentage laws that recognize the reality of how LGBTQ people form their families. Massachusetts, as you've heard, has the highest rate of births through assisted reproduction. We need comprehensive protections for all of the families that choose to create their families in such a way, and we need clarity that gamete donors are not parents. These deficits directly impact children with queer parents, and it harms them in material ways and sends a message to our community that our families are not valued or worthy of protection. Many children with same sex parents in Massachusetts face the untold fear that if conflict or tragedy ever arise, they may be separated from one of their loving parents, and you're going to hear several of those stories this afternoon. They must confront the uncertainty that if a medical emergency should occur, they may not have access to health insurance, nor could they trust that both of their parents could make decisions on their behalf. As a result, all Massachusetts children with LGBTQ plus parents must experience the stigma of knowing7298 that their family is not recognized as equal under the law. Children should never have to experience that kind of uncertainty and fear, and the current law in Massachusetts creates that for youth of LGBTQ plus parents. Children deserve to be proud of who they are and who their loving family is. We hope the state chooses to protect children of LGBTQ plus parents with this Bill and cultivates a future in Massachusetts where all families are valued, protected, and embraced. I urge you to report the MPA favorably out of committee, and Colage would also like to thank Senators Cyr and Tarr and Representatives Peake and Kane for leading on this critical issue. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much. Both of you are coming7337 for the committee to testify.
SPEAKER5 - Appreciate it.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you. Mhmm.
SPEAKER1 - The, next panel, includes Douglas Najim, Chaplain Brooks, executive director of the Mass Commission on LGBTQ Youth, And Kathy Delisle, attorney.
Good afternoon.
SPEAKER11 - Good afternoon.
DOUGLAS NEJAIME - YALE LAW SCHOOL - HB 1713 - SB 947 - Good afternoon. My name is Doug NeJaime, I'm the Anne Urowsky professor of law at Yale Law School where I teach in the areas of family law7375 and constitutional law, and my primary research involves parentage. I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 947, House Bill 1713, the Massachusetts Parentage Act. It is substantially similar to the Connecticut Parentage Act, which our legislature passed in 2021, and I was the principal drafter of that law, which was based on the 2017 uniform parentage act. The MPA is child centered and would meet the state's constitutional obligations to children and parents, ensuring that children's parental relationships are protected regardless of their parents' gender, sexual orientation, or marital status. Same sex couples with children ordinarily feature a non-genetic parent. A parentage framework designed around genetic connection, which is especially common in the treatment of unmarried parents, deprives LGBTQ parents and their children of the security and respect7425 that they're constitutionally entitled7427 to. Many families in7429 Massachusetts feature non-biological parents who are not treated as legal parents.
As developmental science has long demonstrated, a parent child relationship depends not on biological connection, but on attachment which arises from the daily interaction between parent and child. A child centered law would protect children's relationships with the individuals who are functioning as their parents, and family law can do this through functional parent doctrines, including de facto parentage. Since 1999, de facto parentage has been an equitable status in Massachusetts, but the doctrine is confusing,7463 and more importantly, its protections are inadequate, giving rise only to visitation. The MPA gives courts a clear standard and provides greater security for children. The standard is demanding, it's the most demanding that I've seen in my research. De facto parentage is the main subject of my current research. More than 2/3 of US jurisdictions have de facto parentage or an analogous parentage doctrine. Only three other jurisdictions extend only a right to seek visitation. Instead, states grant custody to functional parents on a best interest of the child's standard, and the clear trend is to treat de facto parents as legal parents. This treatment is constitutionally sound. Courts around the country have found de facto parentage constitutional. This view is reflected in recent legislative enactments, including around New England, and in7509 the clear consensus among legal scholars.
Across the country, there are more than 600 electronically reported appellate decisions applying de facto parent or similar doctrines, these appellate courts are not violating the constitution. I'll close by noting the empirical evidence that de facto parent doctrines serve children's interests. Professor Courtney Jocelyn and I collected and coded every electronically reported judicial decision issued between 1980 and 2021 in every US jurisdiction with a relevant doctrine, and our dataset includes 669 cases. Here's the most important finding; in 83% of the cases, the functional parent served as a primary caregiver of the child, and in 94% of the cases in which a court recognized the person as a de facto parent, that individual was the child's primary caregiver. Our data also suggests that often biological parents have not been consistently caring for or living with the child. In nearly 20% of cases, no biological parent had ever served as the child's primary caregiver. In nearly half, no biological parent was the primary caregiver7568 at the time of the action. I'll close by noting this is often true in cases7572 featuring child welfare intervention, which includes 1/3 of the cases in our dataset. Recognition of the de facto parent may be necessary to preserve the child's household and avoid placement into state custody.7584 Thank you for your time.
SHAPLAIE BROOKS - MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION ON LGBTQ YOUTH - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Thank you to the members of the committee on the judiciary for your time today. My name is Shaplaie Brooks, and I use she/her pronouns, and I am the executive director of7602 the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth. We are here today to share our strong support for Senate Bill 947 and House Bill 1713, also known as the Massachusetts Parentage Act. Protecting the safety, permanency, and well-being of the children and families of Massachusetts is a core facet of our mission, and passing the Parentage Act is an essential step in that fight. All children deserve to feel safe and secure in their family unit, and LGBTQ parents should have the same legal protections as any other parent in the Commonwealth. As the only New England state that has not clarified its legal parentage laws, Massachusetts must act now to update and bring them into the 21st century, providing clear, comprehensive protections and guidance to families and courts. These protections ensure protection for children on an equal basis regardless of the circumstances of their birth or gender or their sexual orientation or marital status of their parents. Far too many preventable placement disruptions have occurred where children have been left vulnerable and families have been split apart, which will only continue until we have codified these critical legal protections.
It is particularly crucial that the state enact explicit statutory standards for de facto parents to mitigate an equal treatment and to ensure these children have equal security. Protecting parents who chose to step into that role for their child, who step up to do the hard work of parenting, assist Massachusetts with our federal mandate to preserve the family unit, which reduces trauma, increases safety, solidifies a youth's option for permanency, and increases their overall well-being. A de facto parent is a person who through their conduct, establishes a parent child relationship. Today, a majority of states, whether through case law or statute, protect these functional parent child relationships that are critical to children and their well-being. Right now, de facto parent status in Massachusetts in its current form is an unequal status that only permits access to visitation and does not fully protect children or parents. The Massachusetts Parenting Act standard is rigorous with a standing requirement in seven factors that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which goes above and beyond the standards of kinship placement. In our Lighthouse7743 state, my sincere hope is that we understand that denying parentage to those parents who meet the high standard of de facto status is to harm children and keeps them from the people who they know and love as parents. The commission appreciates the committee's attention to this critical issue and urges its report to the Massachusetts Parentage Act out favorably. Thank you.
KATHLEEN DELISLE - ACADEMY OF ADOPTION & ASSISTED REPRODUCTION ATTORNEYS' - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon. My name is Kathleen DeLisle, and I'm an attorney in Massachusetts as well as Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, States that have all updated their parentage7775 laws. Since 1998, the appellate courts have been7779 begging the legislature to update our parentage laws, it's critical that Massachusetts do so this session. Massachusetts families have been at risk for far too long. The lack of clarity in the law causes significant delays in establishing parentage of children conceived through assisted reproduction. Even though there is no controversy and everyone is in agreement, it often takes months for the child's legal parentage to be established. These delays result in real life devastating consequences that Massachusetts parents and children face because of our outdated parentage laws. I want you to know7812 about the family that wasn't going to7814 be able to make final arrangements for their7816 child that died in utero because their parentage had not been established, so the reported fetal death issued with the gestational surrogate and her spouse as the parents, not the child's parents or the family7829 whose child needed lifesaving surgery7831 right after birth, who couldn't add their baby to their health insurance plan because their parentage had not been established, facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. If the MPA had been enacted when these cases happened, these parents would not have been facing tragedy on top of tragedy. Their parentage would have been established.
The court would have been required to act expeditiously and to treat these cases with the expedience that they deserve and that the children deserve. This summer, I was brought into a case where the judge expressed concern about whether she had the authority to enter a parentage because the parents have used a donated embryo to create their family with their surrogate. After briefing an extensive hearing, the judge finally issued the order a mere two days before the baby was born. The MPA would have erased her doubts, unfortunately, these are not isolated cases. It is critical for this committee to understand that these situations do not happen in any of the other New England states because those states have updated their laws. In all the other New England states, the courts have cleared guidance on how parentage is established and the time frame from which the court must act. In every other state, I can assure my clients that their personal health information will not be part of a public record and what to expect from the court proceedings. I cannot do this in Massachusetts because how a case is handled varies not only from court to court, but from judge to judge. This leaves parents and children extremely vulnerable to a court system that does not understand its history of reproduction and the consequences that stem from this ignorance. Inconsistency is the only constant in Massachusetts probate family court. I implore you on behalf of all parents that utilize system reproduction technologies to build their families and the children that result therefrom to expeditiously report the Massachusetts parentage act favorably out of Committee and provide Massachusetts parents and children with the protections they so rightly deserve. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate each of you coming for the committee to testify. Thank you. The, next person signed up to testify virtually is, judge Jay Blitzman. Judge Blitzman.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
JAY BLITZMAN - MIDDLESEX JUVENILE COURT - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Chairs and members of the committee, I am pleased to testify in support of an act relative to promote children's security, the Massachusetts Parentage Act. My perspective is informed by 20 years of representing children and adolescents as an attorney and serving as a juvenile court judge for almost 24 years. I should also add, I'm the very proud father of a trans son, so this legislation has important implications to me and my family. This legislation would propose a much-needed update in clarifying who and cannot be a parent and how to establish a parentage. Enacting this legislation is critically important in ensuring that all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, have the security of legal parentage. Our concept of family has evolved significantly, it's past time to acknowledge this changing landscape.8025 This entails understanding the lived experiences of children and who are their primary caretakers. I want to speak to the de facto provisions of the MPA. I have submitted in-depth written testimony about this issue. As a juvenile court judge presiding over care and protection cases, I've had direct experience in considering this issue and in conducting hearings to determine if under applicable Massachusetts case law, an individual qualified as a de facto parent. At the outset, I stress that it is very important to emphasize that the de facto parent determination already entails a rigorous judicial analysis to ensure that any person seeking this status is actually functioning on a daily basis as the functional equivalent of a parent and is aware of the serious responsibilities that are implicated.
The proposed amendments to this legislation would reinforce this doctrine. 34 states, as you've heard from Professor DeJaime have already established functional de facto parenting doctrines. Approximately 15 of these jurisdictions8088 allow for functional parents to become legal parents to some8092 degree. Unfortunately, Massachusetts is not yet one of them. The research reveals that nearly 1/3 of the cases where the de facto request is made involve child welfare involvement of some kind, suggesting, as professor NeJaime has written, that in many cases, the functional parent claim bonds too rather than prom state intervention in the family. As a juvenile court judge, these were the very cases I heard, and in some instances, is children we're fortunate to have an alternative to being permanently committed to the Department of Children when their birth parents were unavailable or their parental rights have been terminated. Typically, the functional parent comes into a child's life after conception, or a family member or extended8138 family member steps forward to act as a parent. In the8142 overwhelming majority of cases, the functional parent in the study of Professor NeJaime has already been the child's primary caregiver, and this empirical analysis dates over 40 years from 1980 to 2021. It is heartening to learn that the courts routinely apply functionally parent doctrines to protect Children's relationships with the person who was actually parenting them on a daily basis. The empirical analysis, again, encompasses over 40 years and supports the proposition that functional parent doctrines have been applied thoughtfully in a manner that seeks to avoid destroying relationships between children and their primary caretaker. Confirming the full rights of legal parentage on de facto parents will address a panoply of issues which include complicated medical care, insurance, and inheritance. I truly hope you will favorably act on the Massachusetts Parentage Act. Thank you so much for this opportunity. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, judge Blissman. Appreciate it. Appreciate you testifying. The next panel, in person is includes, excuse me, Nancy Scannell from the Mass Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Darmani8213 Jimenez, youth advocate and child of de facto parent, and Jean Azar Tanguay, young adult.
Good afternoon. Thanks for coming for the committee.
SPEAKER4 - Oh, you want me to go there? Alright.
SPEAKER45 - Alright.
NANCY ALLEN-SCANNELL - MSPCC - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, Representative Barber, it's very nice to see you. I'm Nancy Allen-Scannell, I'm the executive director of MSPCC. More importantly, I'm the non-biological mother of a wonderful teenager, and, yes, you did hear that right, she is wonderful. As you know, MSPCC is one of the oldest children serving organizations in the country. We provide a range of8264 direct services to kids and families, and we advocate for policies and practices that promote child well-being. I am here to enthusiastically and loudly, although I8277 won't yell, support, the Mass Parentage8279 Act, and here's why. The Mass Parentage Act is completely consistent, both in content and intent with best practices in child welfare in a couple of ways that I'll describe in a second, and with the mission and work of MSPCC over our entire history. So, the changes that have occurred in child welfare and the tenants that I'm talking about include the following two things. First, it really reflects an understanding of the status of children in today's society.
We now understand them to be full human beings with their own rights along with their ideas and thoughts and interests, and it reflects an understanding that families include the traditional genetic lineage folks that we're related to, and people who choose each other. So sometimes the child chooses the people that they want to be closest to, in addition to parents, sometimes adopting and in other ways, choosing the child. So, there's sort of reciprocal relationship here, and this Bill really reflects that. In terms of MSPCC's work, the Bill promotes, stable, secure attachment to caregivers, ensuring that they're maintained even when the grown-ups are having a hard time, and it protects children from abuse and neglect. I want to thank the committee and the many, individuals who contributed to the draft for ensuring that the Bill maintains and, in some cases, enhances protections against abuse and neglect8389 that can occur in the context of family. So, with that, I will leave it there, we support everything else that everyone else has8397 said to you, but those are our pieces, and I hope you find them useful. And we urge you to act quickly and favorably on this Bill. Thank you.
DARMANI JIMENEZ - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day,8412 and members of the committee. My name is Darmani Jimenez, I live in Mission Hill, and I'm8416 a Senior at Boston Prep. I'm here today to testify in support of the Mass Parentage Act. I've been supporting this Bill since I've been in 5th grade when I first in front8426 of this committee. So, you can say8428 it's taken a little bit too for this to get passed. I'm hoping that as a sort of like a graduation president that this Bill finally gets passed as a final send off because it shouldn't have taken this long for this Bill to get passed. Massachusetts is the only state in New England where de facto parents don't have the same rights as biological parents. I was raised from birth by8456 my mom, Kylie, a close friend of my biological8458 mother, and my mother, she loves me deeply, but has faced mental health challenges and needed help raising me, my8466 sister, and my little brother. My mom, Kylie, stepped in from day one, she later went through the long and expensive process of being established as our de facto parent through the court system. You've heard the legal definition and other testimony today, but to me, a de facto is a parent that a person loves and depends on.
It is a person that has done the majority of parenting, but currently, like I said, in Massachusetts, de facto status provides only limited legal protections and not full legal parentage. My mom has sacrificed a lot to raise me and my siblings, her love and commitment8504 are both undisputed. My mom has fewer legal8508 rights than my dad who's never really been in the picture, who went to jail for selling narcotics when I8515 was younger, being absent in my life for at least 10 years. I've never once described my mom, Kylie, as de facto, she's simply my mom, and that's a conversation I've always been willing to have with my teachers, anyone who asks about it or who needs to be made aware of the situation. She's been there through the best times and the worst through injuries, when I through my concussion well, two concussions, my procedures, everything like that and she even helped me get through freshman year, which8551 was online, which should say a lot because that was one of the worst times to be a student. I turn 18 next month on New Year's Eve and even though I'll be 18, I'd still want this Bill to be passed, to be legalized8572 so that her and my little brother's relationship can be solidified8576 in the legal system. Someday, I hope to be a lawyer like my de facto grandfather, grandpa Mark, who's also my best friend, another gift that love and not blood gave me. Thank you.
GENE AZAR TANGUAY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Gene Azar Tanguay, and I am a proud Massachusetts voter and lifelong resident of the city of Austin. I'm here today to share my support for the passage of the Massachusetts Parentage Act H 1713 and S 947. I was born in Boston in April of 2001 to my two gay dads, Norm and Peter. I was conceived via vitro fertilization using Norm's sperm and the egg of a known donor. I was also carried by a gestational surrogate. Immediately after my birth, I was administered a birth certificate naming my surrogate and norm as my legal parent/guardian. It was not until mid-2002, over a year later, that I was able to get a birth certificate correctly identifying Norm and Peter as my parents. For over a year of my life, a person who is not and never was my parent had legal claim to me. She had more legal power over me, than my dad who was waking up changing my diapers, answering my 3:00 AM cries. My parents had to navigate a long, confusing, and costly process in order to establish guardianship8657 and have the law recognize them as my dad's as they have been since the day I was born. Norm and Peter are the ones who have put up with me for the last 22 years.
They are both my parents, even if Peter's gametes were not used in my conception and even if it took him over a year to be seen as such by the state of Massachusetts. Blood does not define parentage, actions do. The Mass Parentage Act wouldn't take away anyone's rights, instead, it simply creates codified legal paths to parentage, including for children born through surrogacy or assisted reproductive techniques like IVF as I was.8691 Yes, the process for second for parent adoption is different than it was in8695 2001. However, no family like mine should ever have to worry about the process at all. All the hoops to jump through and costs associated with second parent adoption, which my parents had to endure a second time when my brother Luke was born in the fall of 2002. We are both now incredible adults raised by incredible dads who fought so hard to legally make us theirs. There are many paths to parenthood and many types of families in the Commonwealth, but Massachusetts statues have not kept pace with modern science and diversity of our families leaving children vulnerable. I hope that hearing my testimony and the testimony of others alongside me today shows you how the Massachusetts Parentage Act will have tangible benefits to future children and citizens of our state. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Appreciate each of you coming for the committee to testify. Thank you.
The, next person who's had to testify virtually is James Nichols8747 Worley.
SPEAKER19 - Good afternoon. Is my audio good?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. We can hear you. Go ahead.
SPEAKER48 - Alright. Well,
JAMES NICHOLS-WORLEY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Day, Chair Eldridge, honorable members of the judiciary committee. Thank you so much for having me. I'm here in strong support, of H 1713, S 947, an act to ensure legal parentage equality, the Massachusetts Parentage Act. It will comprehensively update parentage laws8776 in our Commonwealth, ensuring all children have equal access to the security of a legal parent child relationship regardless of the circumstances. I'm 18 years old, I was born as a result of an egg donor in a gestational surrogate. I'm proud to say that in 2004, I was the first person born in Massachusetts to have both my fathers listed on my8799 birth certificate as my legal parents pursuant to a pre-birth parentage petition. But what's especially troubling to me is that 19 years later, the same laws that made my case historic have not been updated. Massachusetts is now the only New England state which has not updated its parentage laws. Parentage is too important a part of life that we should still be trying to figure it out. There's nothing more important than protecting kids and their legal relationship to their parents. This legislation is critical because Massachusetts law does not reflect the diversity of families in our state.
I am a firm believer that our Massachusetts values are what make our Commonwealth competitive, but Massachusetts law lacks clear standards to protect all involved in the surrogacy process, including the intended parents, donors, and people acting as surrogates. The law does not adequately protect LGBTQ plus couples raising children and leaves the relationship between the non-biological parent and child vulnerable. Everyone like me deserves to have the legal stability afforded to children that are conceived naturally. It's time for Massachusetts to update our parentage laws so all of our children and all of our families are protected, not just some.8882 Thank you for your consideration. This is especially important to me. I know one of my fathers is there in the State House today, and when I think about what makes our Commonwealth, what makes Massachusetts so great, it's this, that a family like mine can succeed and be part of Massachusetts. So, thank you for your consideration. I8908 hope you'll report H 1713, S 947 favorably out of committee, and please do not hesitate to ask any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Greatly appreciate it. The, next panel in person Includes Karen Partinan, Jeff Worrell, and Anika Bakias Suen.
So good afternoon.
KAREN PARTANEN - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak on testimony, on behalf of S8955 947 and H 1713, the Massachusetts Parentage Act. My name is Karen Partanen, and I live in Wilmington, and I share equal legal custody8965 with my former partner of my daughter, Jordan, who's 15 now, and my son, James, who's 11. That has not always been the8973 case, though. I'm Parton from the 2016 SJC case of Partanen versus Gallagher, which ultimately did secure my children's rights to me as their non-biological parent. My ex-partner and I planned carefully to have our children, we went through years of fertility treatments, which I actually attempted to become pregnant first, but due to, several years of trying, that didn't work out. So, we, made the decision that my ex would try, and then we'd that was worth it because we had Jordan and James, into our family. After moving to Massachusetts, though, our adult relationship didn't work out, and in 2013, when we decided to part ways, the world came crashing down on me, Jordan, and James, who9022 were only two and five at the time. The outdated Parentage law said that I wasn't their parent, I'll never forget today because James' 12-year-old fingers were pried off of my neck as he was screaming, and he didn't know what was happening. I wasn't sure when I was going to see Jordan and James again.
All I could do was tell them that it was going to be okay, and the next three years, we went through a grueling Parentage dispute as I tried to keep my promise to them that it would be okay. They couldn't understand why I wasn't there anymore, and it certainly wasn't because I didn't want to be, it's because the law said that their parent, they didn't have any rights to love me as they always have for9069 those years. I was forced at that time to empty my savings account, spend my entire retirement fund and even eat from the local food pantry as I spent hours and hours, and I even lost my job trying to navigate my way through the family court system. The SJC decision did ultimately change the law for my children, but we should have never had to go through that litigation, and these statutes still aren't updated. Children are in limbo, and parents are still trying to understand the system. Seven years after my children's rights were secured, there are families still draining their savings accounts, losing jobs, needing from food pantries as they try to navigate the system. I urge you9120 to support this Bill and make it crystal clear that all families have a legal access to legal parentage and child relationships. Thank you for listening and caring about all Massachusetts families.
ANNIKA BOCKIUS-SUWYN - THE MASSACHUSETTS LGBTQ BAR ASSOCIATION - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, committee members. I'm here today wearing many hats. My name is Annika Bockius-Suwyn, I'm an attorney, I am also a parent, and I'm here on behalf of the LGBTQ Bar Association. The Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association has instructed me to inform this committee that the Bar Association's top legislative priority is the Massachusetts Parentage Act, and it will continue to be so until all children have secured legal relationships with all of their parents. Second, I practice law in the area of parentage, helping queer9171 people protect the families they create. My clients are scared now more than ever, I want to do everything they can to make sure that the emotional bonds they've forged also have the power of law behind them. For many, it is a humiliating, confusing, and costly undertaking, but they do it because queer families are under9189 attack right now. And finally,9191 I'm a mom by assisted reproductive technology. My wife provided the egg9195 to be fertilized by donor sperm, and I carried the resulting embryo to term. It is an increasingly common method of creating a family, but there is nothing that even comes close to contemplating it in current Massachusetts law.9207 The Commonwealth is9209 home to the most per capita children born via ART in the country, and yet our statutes on this kind of technology are at least 40 years old. They also reference a husband, which I do not have, and a father, which my child does not have. My shirt today says I have to adopt this kid with an arrow that pointed to my baby bump when I was pregnant. The baby in question is now 14 months old, so not as old as Darmani, and we're still fighting to bring parentage law to the Commonwealth.
In fact, to secure the rights of both myself and my wife, I do in fact have to adopt my child. At least I'm an attorney who does this type of9245 law. I do not have to pay thousands of dollars, and I know how to draft the paperwork to meet the least amount of resistance from the registry of probate. When a clerk pushes back, I know how to respond, but you shouldn't have to be9256 an attorney to make sure your relationship with your child is legally protected. The current loopholes in Massachusetts law leave kids vulnerable. Children are sent into an overtaxed DCF system when they have a loving parent ready to care for them. They are taken away from a non-biological parent because an abusive biological parent exploits the lack of legal protection. They go to sleep every night unsure of whether a legal Technicality could separate them from a parent who loves them. Massachusetts likes to pride itself on being at the forefront of LGBTQ rights, but we have been left behind. Massachusetts would be the last of the six New England states to pass these protections. The Massachusetts courts have done an9294 admirable job of trying to interpret the laws we do have to protect as many families as possible, but the case law is difficult, and even trial court9302 judges struggle to make decisions without extensive, expensive court cases. What we need is clarity, and the MPA brings it. Clarity and modernity and equality for all children in the Commonwealth regardless of the circumstances of their birth. I and the entire board of the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association ask that you report the Bill favorably as soon as possible so that all families in the Commonwealth can truly be equal.
JEFF WORRALL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of an act to ensure legal parentage equality, otherwise known as the MPA. My name is Jeff Worrall, and I'm from Wareham. I'm a widower with three adult children. I now have seven grandchildren; all of my children are happily married. My older daughter, Lindsay, and her wife, Sy, live9352 in Stow, Mass and have three children. My younger daughter and her husband live in Clinton, Mass with their two children, and my son and his wife are in California with their two children. My two9364 top values are family and fairness. I strongly support this legislation because it really focuses on fairness for children. When Lindsay found out that she was pregnant, my wife was at MGH in the stages of her cancer battle. My daughter did not share with us all the challenges of her IVF treatments, including miscarriages and other emotionally gut-wrenching events as her mom was fighting for her life. The birth of my first grandchildren who were twins, six months after my wife's passing, really lifted our family spirits.
As my beautiful grandchildren grew, my daughter shared some of the legal steps she and her wife had to take, such as adopting their own children, I was shocked. Initially, I thought she was joking, she informed me that the action was critical to establish her rights as a parent. I also felt so disappointed learning that because of who my daughter married and how they had children would affect her parental rights. So instead of starting a college savings plan for my first grandchildren, my gift was a contribution to her legal fund so that my daughter's parental rights could be preserved. Many families do not have the resources to hire professionals to ensure their basic parental rights are protected. Additionally, many families would have no idea that additional steps were even, would9449 even be required to preserve those rights. The MPA will help reduce these costs, issues, and trauma for families, it will keep Massachusetts where it belongs, on the forefront of equal rights for all. Thank you so much, and please9462 report the Bill favorably. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so much to each of you for testifying. Appreciate it. The, next panel is Bob Nichols and Theo Paul.
Good afternoon.
ROBERT NICHOLS - NICHOLS, DELISLE & LIGHTHOLDER P.C - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge and Chair Day. Thank you for having us. My name is Robert Nichols, and I'm from Southborough, Massachusetts. I'm here to express9504 my very strong support for the Massachusetts Parentage Act. I am an attorney here in Massachusetts who has been practicing in the area of Reproductive law for over 20 years. However, I'm here to testify in a more important role as the parent of three children with my husband, Dane Worley. Dane and I met in college in the 1980s, and within a few weeks, we started to talk about having children together. We spent much of the 1990s trying to put all the pieces together in finding an egg donor, gestational carrier, and IVF clinic. After many starts and stops, our carrier became pregnant with our twins, Jackson and Sada. Jackson and Sada were born in 2000 in Lewiston, Maine. Upon their birth, because Dane is Jackson and Sada's genetic parent, his name and the gestational carrier's name were placed on their birth certificates. It took one legal process in the state of Maine to remove the carrier's name from the birth certificate so that Dane was then the sole legal parent. We then needed to do a second parent adoption back9560 here in Massachusetts to have me declared as our children's other legal parent, that process took approximately eight months to complete. During that period of time, although I was much of our children's parent in every way as Dane. I could not legally sign paperwork on their behalf, I could not make medical decisions on their behalf. If I had passed away during that eight-month period,9580 Jackson and Sada would not have9582 been entitled to collect Social Security benefits or other benefits.
So, while I was apparent in all other respects, the legal system said I was, and it was quite scary. Because of what we had gone through, I started to help others become parents through egg donation and or surrogacy by expanding my legal practice and putting into place protections to cover all of the issues that opposite sex couples get automatically9604 upon the birth of their children. In 2003, Dane and I decided to have another child. In the few short years since our twins were born, the legal landscape had changed dramatically, thanks to the Supreme Judicial Court9617 case and the Goodrich decision legalizing Gay marriage. Dane and I were married in 2004 after same sex marriages were allowed to begin. In early 2004,9627 our second surrogate became pregnant with9629 our son, James, who you've already met. I was able to successfully argue to the probate and family court that Goodridge requires the state to treat same sex married couples in all the same respects as opposite sex couples, and, therefore, we were entitled to a pre-birth parentage order for James. Because our understanding is that James is the first child born in Massachusetts with two fathers on his original birth certificate. While having the pre-birth order in place gave me the rights and responsibilities of parentage under the law upon James' birth, there's still nothing in the law that requires judges to issue pre-birth orders to same sex couples. James is about to turn 19, 19 years is long enough. I strongly encourage you to report the Massachusetts Parenting Act favorably out of committee and support the legislation that continues through the process so that we can provide greater protection to families like ours. Thank you for your time.
THEODORE PAUL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Theodore Paul, and I'm here to speak in support of the Massachusetts Parentage Act. At three months old, my child was hospitalized with severe RSV, taken from their pediatrician's office to children's hospital by ambulance. Concern and worry mingled with another terror; I wouldn't be allowed to stay with my newborn in the hospital. I'm a trans man, and although I watched my partner now of 20 years give birth to our only child, Hattie, I was left off of their birth certificate because we used a donor to conceive. I met my partner, Rebecca, in 2004 when I took a teaching job in Boston. Within a few years, we were committed to one another. As a queer couple, we were not able to have a federally recognized marriage, and we decided that a wedding didn't feel like a needed step to making us family. In 2009, we began the long journey of becoming parents, and Rebecca gave birth in January nearly two years later, but I had no rights as a parent to the newborn we were raising because Hattie and I were not genetically related. Should something has happened to Rebecca, there was no legal record of my relationship to either her or our child.
When I followed the ambulance to Children's Hospital when Hattie was so sick their first spring, I prayed that we would pass well enough as a straight couple so hospital staff wouldn't question us both being there. To fully protect ourselves and our child immediately after their birth, we pursued9760 a co parent adoption to establish our parental rights. We are fortunate enough to have the time and money to do this as well as the expertise of our adoption lawyer9768 to help us navigate the courts. It felt surreal having to ask friends and family to write affidavits attesting to our commitment to each other and our child in support of Hattie's adoption. Our adoption was held up because we were not married. So nearly a year later, we finally had a court date, and while we celebrated in court that morning, it was also a bittersweet reminder of the hoops that nontraditional families need to jump through just to establish themselves as legal guardians to their own children. Massachusetts law does not adequately protect LGBTQ people or anyone for that matter who is raising a child not biologically related to them. We need clarity and protections securing the relationship between intended parents and their children. Based on the uniform parentage act of 2017, the MPA has been thoughtfully crafted by leading experts in parentage law to meet the needs of children and families. This Bill will ensure the Commonwealth's parentage laws remain institutional, reflect best practices, and protect all children in the Commonwealth. Thank9825 you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you so9827 much. Appreciate She will do testify.
REP DAY - Actually, before you depart, if I could just ask attorney Nichols, could you give us a sense of the process you have to go through for the pre-birth order, timing, what evidence you have to bring forward, how the court receives that type of stuff?
NICHOLS - Today?
DAY - Maybe from when you started to how it's evolved.
NICHOLS - So as I explained the process in 2000, when our twins were born, it was very uncharted territory, so we had to do anything that we possibly could. So, again, it was a three-step process, one is to get the first birth certificate with my husband's name on it, then secondly, to get the surrogate's name off the birth certificate and then coming back to Massachusetts doing the second parent adoption. Today, we routinely file for pre-birth orders when9874 the gestational carrier is obviously still pregnant, so we tend to file them during the second trimester of the pregnancy, and we get affidavits from the parents, from the surrogate,9885 from the IVF doctor and basically, just tell the story to the court as to how this child came to be and that it's a medical certainty that the child resulted from the embryo that was transferred that was created from typically, if it's a same sex male couple, from one of their sperm and an anonymous egg donor. Just to make it clear that the surrogate is not the genetic mother of the child. Then depending on the court, depending on the judge, we9916 sometimes get orders, you know, the judgments returned very quickly and sometimes we have to chase them forever and ever. As my law partner explained, there are instances where we have emergency situations where we have to essentially beg the courts to issue orders so that we can get the right thing done for parents who have just gone through some tragic situation. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Appreciate it. Thank you again both of
SPEAKER13 - you for testifying. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - The next person to sign up to testify virtually is Guillemell de Carvalho from the Mass Commission on the Status of Women.
SPEAKER4 - Not there? Not there.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Okay. Not so enough. Grace Moreno. Virtual. Grace Marino. I'm 3 d. Oh, alright. Excellent. Thanks for coming in.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you so much.9974 And, I'm your last person, I think. So, I better be good because I'm sure you guys are tired and thirsty.
GRACE MORENO - MASSACHUSETTS LGBT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Thank you so much. My name is Grace Moreno, I am the executive director of the Massachusetts LGBT Chamber of Commerce, and I hold many identities, but my most proud identity is the mother of Sofia and Javier Moreno Frey. Thank you, first of all, for hearing this testimony10000 today and for chairing this committee on this very important Bill. The dream of10007 becoming a parent is not just for heterosexual people, most of us that are not heterosexual wanted to be parents before10015 we even knew we were not heterosexual, it was certainly my dream as I daydreamed about my own family. It was a joy to meet my wife when I was 33 years old and to learn that we both wanted children. We can't become apparent for those of us that are not heterosexual is not an easy road. It's expensive. It's filled with medical appointments and legal meetings for those of us who need surrogates as you've heard from some of the members of our community, but the pregnancies are not much different for mothers. One of us is carrying the baby, the other one's cleaning all the cat litter because you're not supposed to clean cat litter when you're pregnant, that was my job. One of us is having morning sickness, the other person's reading books because since we can't make the baby, we want to make sure we know how to take care of it when it gets here, sadly learning that none of those books actually tell you what's actually coming up. One of us is buying ice cream while the other person's craving it, and all these10080 things we're doing as we wait for the new addition of our family. I'm not the parent that gave birth to my children, but I can assure you that I am just as much a parent as my wife is. I was there when they were born, in fact, I was the first person that touched their skin because I caught them when they entered the world.
I was there when they took their first breath and became a newly witness that God exist Because then there was another life, never before that could I have really believed that. They10114 have my brown hair and my brown eyes and my brown skin, and people look at us and say, now who gave10120 birth? Three months after Sofia was born, we took a trip to Canada to take care of some family business. We began the process of adoption because my parents live10132 in Mexico and my siblings live10134 in Texas, neither place that would have been favorable for me, and my wife is from Australia, and at the time, the laws didn't protect us there either. Yet, we were not able to get the adoption done because it takes a long time and it's expensive before we traveled to Canada. At the Canada border, the officer asked for Sofia's birth certificate10152 where both mine and my wife's name were listed. Hers under the category of mother and mine under the scratched-out category of father where it said another parent. We had our cryobank paper so that we could show that we were the two parents. Nevertheless, the officer asked, who's the father? I politely said there is no father, our child has two mothers. And they said that's impossible, every child has a father and a mother, and you have to have a letter from the parent that's not present before you can take the child out of the country. I explained, again, that there was no father, I showed him the adoption papers that now weren't not done, they denied us the ability to leave. Thankfully, I had volunteered for Senator Kennedy's office and called the Senator's office, and within an hour, I was allowed to leave the country with my child and my wife.10208
I later went on to10210 work for Senator Kennedy at the Edward Kennedy Institute because I10214 felt I owed him and his work something. I cried for the fear that someone could look at me in the eye and tell me that Sofia is not my daughter. It was not only hurtful, but it was just not true, this child was mine. We didn't have the right papers to confirm that. As soon as we returned from Canada, I did something I'd never done before10239 and that my immigrant parents had asked me never to do, which was10243 to charge my credit card up to its limit10245 so I could hire a lawyer and pay the fees so that the law would recognize Sofia10251 as mine. When Sofia was around seven10254 years old, we went to Australia, and again, we faced the same situation at the border. Except this time, she didn't understand why they were asking for adoption papers, she didn't know she was adopted, we'd failed to say it. She'd forgotten it from when she was one and this happened. She was appalled, and she said, those power people, why do they want you to be10276 my mom? I said, darling, they don't, it's legal things and the things you tell kids, but she held onto that. I do not know where each of you are on this issue, and I don't know if you're parents or not, but I'm sure you have children in your lives who belong to parents that are your brothers or your sisters, who you would fight for to make sure that they could stay with those people who love them as their parents. I told Sofia today that I was on my way here to testify on behalf of this, and she said, tell those people in the dome building that they have10316 to protect people like me.10318 I was10320 fortunate I had a credit card I could charge, and I volunteered for a good Senator. Many people in our situation do not have that access and we owe it to each other, and you owe it as our elected officials on this hill to protect us and our families, all we want10339 to do is be good parents. As I10341 look at some of the young people who testified today who have same sex parents, I am so proud, and I look so forward to continuing to be the mother that I have been blessed to be for my children. I strongly urge you to support this Bill, and I10356 strongly urge you to continue to protect the people who've elected you because10360 you are here to protect us. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much, miss Maran. I think I can speak for the whole committee and say we're glad you came in 3 day.
SPEAKER11 - I almost brought Sofia. That would have been a rough 1.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much.
Let's see. Virtual Michael Javier.
SPEAKER9 - I'm also here.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, alright.
SPEAKER21 - Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier
SPEAKER1 - Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier
SPEAKER4 - Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier
SPEAKER9 - Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier Xavier. My Spanish is just Javier, so it's fine.
MICHAEL XAVIER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon. My name is Michael Xavier. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and all of you for being here in support of this very important act. Like many of the10407 people before you who are much10409 more eloquent than I can be, I also wear many hats, and my most proud hat, is as a husband and a father of my child, Aria Lourdes Xavier, is our child born of a same sex marriage. We live happily ever after in10422 Marblehead,10422 Massachusetts. Luckily, we have10424 the resources and the support to do that, unlike, many other parents who do not have those support, the resources, and the laws that afford them the ability to do that. I am also a practitioner, I practice primarily family law In Boston, I work at a firm called Principle of All Time, a partner there. I've been practicing family law for approximately 20 years or so. I also come here in the capacity of the president of the Greater Boston Famine Lines of Court, which is an organization of approximately 100 lawyers, throughout the Commonwealth, mostly in the Boston area who practice family law and those practitioners are in strong support of this act. They practice in the family courts every day, and they see the need for clarity and support for the litigants that come before them. I will tell you, having practiced family law, I have seen the damage that can be done and it's astounding to me that we're the only state that doesn't have this act, or the supports that other New England states have.
I have represented individuals, I remember one case where I represented two parents, gay dads who were scrambling to get their pre-birth orders, and the probate court had no clue with what to do, how to get the orders. It created chaos in their lives and all they wanted to do was celebrate the10503 birth of their young son, which they spent a significant amount of resources to get. I represent clients who have to get adoptions because they're scared to leave the Commonwealth, because they're not afforded the protections that, other parents are afforded. The Karen Partanen of the world, you heard her story10520 today, she is one, there are others. I recently turned down a litigation case because I wasn't going to be part of a client who wanted to use the courts and the trajectory of being in court, in and out of it for three years, spending tens and thousands of dollars, to certainly separate a child from another parent who just doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the protections, and doesn't have the law in place necessary to ensure that our judges, and there are 40 of them, and they need clarity in law, but we don't have and our citizens don't have the ability to be protected from spending their retirement, their savings, they lose their jobs. We need this act to ensure that all children are treated fairly and equally. I've also, as a petitioner, have read the law, I've read10574 the drafts, it conforms with Massachusetts law. I'm proud to have looked at many of the drafts that Polly Crozier put together and believe that it is sound and necessary for our courts to adopt. So, I ask you urgently to consider moving this Bill forward. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for coming for the committee. Appreciate it.
A panel.
Claire Taylouni, Reproductive Equity Now and Meg York, Family Equality.
CLAIRE TEYLOUNI - REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, members of the committee. Thanks so much for10619 having me. My name is Claire Teylouni, and I'm here on behalf of Reproductive Equity Now in support of the Massachusetts Parentage Act. As you've heard from many, this legislation will state parentage law in Massachusetts ensuring that all Massachusetts children have equal access to legal parent child10636 relationships regardless of their circumstances of their birth or the marital status, gender, or10642 sexual orientation of the parents. As you know, our statute currently lacks protection for children born through assisted reproduction, which leaves children vulnerable and specifically leaves LGBTQ families at a disadvantage when it comes to enjoying the full range of reproductive freedoms that the legislature has worked so hard to secure in the Commonwealth. Equality of parentage law is a really critical component of reproductive equity and reproductive justice. Every individual needs to have the ability to make decisions about whether and when to parent, and to parent with dignity. As you've heard with the highest rates of birds through assisted reproduction in the country and yet as the only state in New England which has not updated its parentage laws, Massachusetts really must take10690 action here. A Bill like10692 this protects children, protects10694 all children by making clear how to secure parental rights.
This is squarely a reproductive justice issue. Protecting family formation in a post-op’ world is really critically important. Justice states across the country are banning and restricting access to abortion. We know the same states are restricting the rights of LGBTQ individuals and families, that they're coming for nontraditional families and IVF and other forms of assisted reproduction. Abortion and IVF are ultimately different sides of the same coin, they are medical procedures that allow people to make deeply personal decisions about whether and when to become a parent and allow individuals the freedom to choose how and when to start a family. Everyone should have that freedom to create a future of their own making, and the legislature needs to take action to make sure that all parents, no matter how they become one, have the legal protection to parent with dignity. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We also look forward to submitting written testimony on behalf of REN's president, Rebecca Hartholder, who unfortunately wasn't able to be here today, but who is proud to have been able to start her family with her wife, thanks to IVF and gamete donation, and whose experience informs our organization's endorsement of this legislation, and the critical need to promote equality and legal consistency for all families in Massachusetts. As you've heard10777 stories from other families, she had to adopt her own child because she's in a same sex10781 relationship, and she and her10783 family had the resources to be able to secure that legal protection, but that lack of equal access to those legal protections for families is inequitable and really needs to be remedied this session. Thank you very much.
MEG YORK - FAMILY EQUALITY - HB 1317 - SB 947 - Good afternoon, Chairs, committee members. My name is Meg York, I'm a New England attorney and director of LGBTQ plus family law and policy at Family Equality, I'm also a non-gestational parent. I'm sharing Family Equality's strong support for the passage of the Massachusetts Parentage Act. Family Equality is a national organization advancing lived and legal equality for LGBTQ plus families and those who wish to form them for over 40 years. We support many families in Massachusetts. As you heard from Jordan earlier, we also host family week in Provincetown every year. When it comes to family law, one of the most common questions we get is someone asking whether they are their child's legal parent. These questions come from all kinds of parents, from those using assisted reproduction to create their families to people who have been functioning as their child's parent for years but who share no genetic connection with10857 them. Every day, children are cared for by adults who they only know as their parent, yet the law doesn't recognize them as such. I want to take a minute and talk to you about Emily. Emily works with us at Family Equality, she's been with us for over eight years, she's a lifelong Massachusetts resident, born here, raised here, and today, she's growing her family here.
Emily has two moms, but when Emily was born, her mom’s couldn't get married. One of her mom’s had no legal connection to her other mom or to Emily. That left that family vulnerable, it left Emily vulnerable. When Emily was 11 years old, she went to the court with her parents to do a second parent adoption. She was scared, she was vulnerable, she knew that they were a family, she had no10911 lack of idea who her parents were, she knew who her parents were, and yet she was there at the mercy of the court and at the mercy of the judge.10919 No child should have to face this worry, no child should have to face this fear, that was a10926 long time ago. But even in Massachusetts today, where case law has evolved in this area, children remain vulnerable due to the inconsistent application that comes from failing to codify legal protections. The parents who contact us are scared; they worry what this legal insecurity means for their children. They've heard the stories of courts stripping children of their non birth LGBTQ plus parent, they're worried about the increasingly hostile environment directed toward LGBTQ plus people throughout the United States. For these families, the Massachusetts Parentage Act is Protection, its relief, it's equality. It is a path to legal protections guaranteed to be honored throughout the United States. The Massachusetts Parentage Act would ensure that all Massachusetts children have equal access to illegal parent child relationships regardless of the circumstances of their birth or the marital status, gender10987 identity, or sexual orientation of their parents. This law would provide children and families with the legal security they currently do not have, strengthening all Massachusetts families. Massachusetts has the opportunity to join every other New England state and offer its citizens comprehensive parentage protections. The Commonwealth has a strong history of standing up for equality. Today, I urge you to stand up for children of all types of families by voting, the Massachusetts Parentage Act favorably out of committee. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you each for testifying for the committee. Greatly appreciate it.
That's the end of people who have signed up to testify. Is there anyone Here in person, who wishes to testify for the committee? K. Is there anyone virtual who wants to testify for the committee? No? Okay. Okay. Well, that, concludes the judiciary committee's probate and family 2 hearing. I wanna thank, Chair Day and his staff, and my staff. And this is, I would say, 1 of the most powerful hearings I've been to, so thanks to everyone who testified. And if you'd like to Submit or follow-up with supplemental testimony, you can send it to the judiciary committee research director, Michael Musto at michael.musto@mehouse.gov. Thanks, everyone.
© InstaTrac 2025