Care and Protection of Zimmer.

── Care and Protection of Zimmer. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-152 CARE AND PROTECTION OF ZIMMER. 1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The mother and the father appeal from a decision of the Juvenile Court in this care and protection case finding them currently unfit as of the time of trial and awarding the Department of Children and Families (DCF or department), which before trial had temporary custody of their child, permanent custody. The appeal does not involve the termination of parental rights, so the judge did not determine that the parents' unfitness was likely to extend indefinitely into the future. The judge also agreed with the parents that the department had not made the statutorily-required reasonable efforts toward reunification of the family. 1 A pseudonym. In order to ensure privacy, we use only descriptive words for the parties (i.e., mother, father, child) rather than their names.  When the decision was issued, it was accompanied only by a two-page opinion. Months after the trial, the trial judge issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although the parents are correct that this decision contains some findings supported by unadmitted posttrial evidence which cannot properly be used to justify the judgment, we nonetheless conclude that the judge's error in relying on that evidence ultimately was immaterial to the decision made by the judge. There is clear and convincing evidence of the parents' current unfitness at the time of trial, even after excising the improperly-relied-upon findings of fact. See Adoption of Luc, 484 Mass. 139, 148 (2020). Finally, although the judge found that the department failed to engage in reasonable efforts toward reunification, we conclude she did not abuse her discretion by not entering a specific remedial order. We thus affirm. Background. The facts of the case are well known to the parties. They will not be repeated here except as necessary. This case commenced on November 2, 2022, when the then five year old child opened the door to his home in Chelsea to a utility service worker, who discovered that the child was home alone and unattended. The mother reported that she was working on Cape Cod and was on her way back. The father had separated from the mother about a week before and was not involved in the 2 child's life at the time. A mandated reporter filed a report pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 51A (51A report), which was screened in for an emergency response. During the department's investigation, the child disclosed that he was frequently left at home with no one to watch him. His pediatrician disclosed that the child had not received recommended medical care and had not been seen by the pediatrician for over eighteen months at the time the department filed the care and protection petition, and that the mother had failed to attend multiple pediatric appointments, including four appointments in 2022. The department discovered that the child was not