Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 6237 36 A Mother and Child Reunion “Maria,” a single woman in her 20s, knew she didn’t yet have the resources to provide proper care or housing for her newborn child. Unable to afford an attorney, the mother appeared before the Probate and Family Court alone, agreeing to hand over what she thought was temporary guardianship of her son to her friend, the child’s godmother. What Maria did not realize was that she had consented to giving her friend permanent guardianship of her child. Several months later, Maria was back on her feet, able to resume care and eager to regain full custody of her boy. Maria was horrified to learn that her so-called friend and her friend’s husband had no intention of relinquishing the child, and instead were attempting to adopt the boy. Again, with no money for a lawyer, Maria went to court on her own to file a petition for removal of the godmother as guardian. The court recognized, though, that the mother’s fundamental and constitutionally protected rights were at stake in this situation, so the judge sought guidance from the appellate courts as to whether the mother should have a right to an appointed lawyer. Working closely with a companion case filed by attorneys at Community Legal Aid in Worcester, Massachusetts, a team of Mintz Levin lawyers took the mother’s appeal. Attorneys Sue Finegan, Sandra Badin, and Geoffrey Friedman prepared a brief to the Supreme Judicial Court, with assistance from attorney Nichole Beiner, project analyst Conlan Orino, and summer intern Emma Nitzberg. The Mintz Levin team, led by Sue, presented its case to the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “This was a cutting-edge issue—whether the right of indigent parents to counsel in guardianship of a minor extends beyond the initial petitions. If granted, this right would extend to hundreds, if not thousands, of parents each year,” Sue said. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mintz Levin and Community Legal Aid. The court concluded that when an indigent parent who is not represented by counsel seeks to remove a guardian and thereby regain custody of the child or modify the terms of a guardianship, the parent has a due process right to counsel to file such a petition, and to be informed of this right, provided the parent presents a meritorious claim. The result of this case is doubly good: other parents will be able to have a lawyer by their side when such momentous decisions are being made, and Maria and her child have been reunited and are doing well. “I’m so happy that my case is going to be able to change the law so that other parents don’t have to live through the heartache that I did.” “Maria” Pro Bono Client