Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 35 (2026)

Furnishing parent or guardian information as to child; permission to visit; notice; parents convicted of first degree murder

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 35. If the parent or guardian of a child placed in charge of any person, association or public or private institution by any state department, town board, or by any public or private corporation or body of persons authorized by law to so place children, or if one of the next of kin of an orphan so placed in charge and without guardian, is not, upon request, informed by such department, board, corporation or body of persons where the child is, the probate court for the county where such child has his legal residence may, upon petition of such parent, guardian or next of kin, and upon notice, if in its opinion the welfare of the child and the public interest will not be injured thereby, require such department, board, corporation or body of persons to give the information and permit the parent, guardian or next of kin to visit the child at such times and under such conditions as the court orders; and the court may revise its order or make new orders or decrees as the welfare of the child and the public interest may require. No court shall make an order providing visitation rights to a parent who has been convicted of murder in the first degree of the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless such child is of suitable age to signify his assent and assents to such order; provided, further, that until such order is issued, no person shall visit, with the child present, a parent who has been convicted of murder in the first degree of the other parent of the child without the consent of the child's custodian or legal guardian.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Thaddeus & Others v. Sec'y of the Exec. Off. of Health & Human Servs. & Another., 193 N.E.3d 472 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thaddeus & Others v. Sec'y of the Exec. Off. of Health & Human Servs. & Another., 193 N.E.3d 472 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 6× “everal months of the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting in-person visitation between parents and their children in department custody and instead requiring, in most cases, "virtual visitation" by video conference, did not terminate the rights of the plaintiffs, who had children in…”

Custody of a Minor, 392 Mass. 719 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “That power is modified, how *726 ever, by G. L. c. 119, § 35, as appearing in St. 1954, c.”

Care & Prot. of Thomasina, 915 N.E.2d 569 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 119, § 35. The department also plays a role in both grandparent and sibling visitation.”

Adoption of Rhona, 784 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “” G. L. c. 119, § 35, inserted by St. 1954, c.”

Custody of a Minor, 389 N.E.2d 68 (Mass. 1979). “119, the parent retains such residual rights as the right to visit, *885 G. L. c. 119, § 35, to consent to adoption, G.”

Adoption of Vito, 728 N.E.2d 292 (Mass. 2000). “719, 726 (1984), quoting G.L. c. 119, § 35. See 110 Code Mass. Regs.”

Custody of a Minor, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 91 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “This is not to say, however, that the review and redetermination begins with a blank slate. As we observed earlier in this opinion, each review and each successive set of findings builds on preceding stages.”

Adoption of Isla. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “See G. L. c. 119, § 35. However, the father cites no authority that suggests that the department is required to proactively offer visitation when, as here, the father denied being the biological father.”

ADOPTION OF HILDA (& a Companion Case). (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). “479, 488 (2003), quoting G. L. c. 119, § 35. Generally, "the visitation right is .”

Care & Prot. of Dor. (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). “As the father notes, the department has an 4 Even if we were to agree with the father's contention that the department failed to make reasonable efforts, we are constrained to conclude that we cannot provide any effective relief for any missed visits due to the passage of time.”

ADOPTION OF OBA (& Two Companion Cases). (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). “479, 488 (2003), quoting G. L. c. 119, § 35, DCF retains authority to control the visits of the children within its custody.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.