This is pure speculation but mom may have had custody of the children in Mass while dad was in NH doing something else. If mom had sole physical custody and DCYF in MA had to keep removing her children due to neglect (which it sounds like since it was reported that the children were "in and out" of foster care), she would be the only parent really being investigated.
It may be different in MA, but in NH you have reunification plans where the parent(s) have to meet certain goals and go through different testing. If CS began on the plan but at some point refused to participate due to using again, it gets to a point where there's a hearing on if reunification will be impossible and there's a plan for the termination of parental rights.
The thing I don't understand is how they found AM to be a suitable relative placement when he has a long and violent criminal record. That would absolutely disqualify a person from becoming a foster parent and would likely disqualify a relative from being a relative foster parent.
I think it was very poor judgment to give AM custody instead of a foster/adopt family. Even if he was temporarily clean, his history should have disqualified him. People lose their parental rights permanently for much less.
I've been struggling to understand the particular sequence here. IMO, there's no way AM was investigated at all prior to custody being given.
I just did a digital Boston Globe subscription so I can follow this more closely from the MA perspective because that's my state and I'm genuinely disturbed by the actions of MA DCF based on what I have heard to date.
I recall reading about MA using some kind of exception process for the awarding of custody to AM which meant there was no background or other check into him and no ICPC in place. I'm trying to piece it together as someone who knows zilch about family law.
Boston Globe articles
1/5
"Harmony spent at least part of her earliest years in a Massachusetts shelter with her mother ...It remains unclear how Montgomery was deemed a suitable guardian for the child in the first place....He was charged in Massachusetts with armed robbery, armed assault to murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building....Juvenile court records are confidential in Massachusetts, so there is no public paper trail that would explain the reasoning used in awarding custody to Adam Montgomery."
1/6
"On Thursday, for the second straight day, Massachusetts officials offered little or no insight into the state juvenile court’s decision in February 2019 to place Harmony in the custody of her father. Montgomery has a lengthy criminal history, including a 2014 conviction for shooting a man in the face during a botched drug deal.
In an e-mail, the Department of Children and Families said it was cooperating with the investigation, but couldn’t share further details because of “federal and state privacy requirements.”
1/10
"According to Massachusetts court records and relatives, Sorey was pregnant with the child in January 2014 when Montgomery shot a man in the head during a drug deal in Haverhill.
Adam Montgomery pleaded guilty in connection with the 2014 Haverhill shooting and was given an 18-month suspended sentence to be served concurrently with an unrelated criminal case, records show.
Massachusetts officials are monitoring the case. The Massachusetts juvenile court awarded custody of Harmony to Adam Montgomery in February 2019, according to a recent statement from Maria Mossaides, director of the Office of the Child Advocate in Massachusetts."
Boston 25 News has an article with the most detail I've been able to find in regard to the procedure used in this case.
25 Investigates: ‘System failure’ allowed NH girl’s disappearance to go unreported for two years
"Investigative reporter and anchor Kerry Kavanaugh has learned that
once 7-year old Harmony left Massachusetts with no ICPC in place, that effectively ended DCF’s involvement in her life and the department closed her case."
A Judge interviewed noted that it's not prohibited to award custody to someone with a criminal record: “It’s not prohibited unless that criminal record included the death of another child. As soon as [Dad] steps forward, their regulations allow them to get the ICPC started with New Hampshire,” she said about DCF guidelines about out of state placements."
"What’s unclear is whether Massachusetts DCF requested an ICPC and whether New Hampshire declined to do one.
Under Massachusetts regulations, when a child is going to the custody of a biological parent an ICPC is not required. ICPC’s are usually invoked when children are placed for adoption or foster care across state lines.
But Judge Craven says sending a child in DCF care to another state without an ICPC is highly unusual.
“
I don’t recall ever doing it,” she tells 25 Investigates."
The article notes the usual process which clearly was NOT followed in this case:
"
The agency added, custody awards are the end result of a court process, and are determined by the court. And, they say, as a general matter, per Massachusetts DCF regulations, placement with a caregiver is contingent on a home study done by the child welfare agency in a receiving state through the ICPC process. The caregiver for the child also must pass a background records check performed in accordance with the DCF Background Records Check Policy."
From another Boston 25 article: "What’s unclear is whether DCF ever conducted a home study before Harmony was placed with her father and whether any child welfare was checking in on her once that placement was finalized...If there’s an open child protective case, which means that there’s a legal relationship between a state, a child and a family, so generally when they’re sent to another state there may be an interstate compact agreement where the receiving state would have some responsibility to check on the child.
If however the child is placed with a non-offending parent, a biological parent who’s not involved in any abuse and neglect, they may not need that because the child is considered safe."
What I surmise is that MA was happy to get this case closed and end all their work associated with it by placing HM with AM as they could consider him a "non offending" parent as he was not involved in the MA DCF case and was a resident of NH.
This isn't to say NH didn't make their own errors once HM was found as part of a NH investigation. Did they ever realize she had an active case in MA? I seriously doubt it.
I've also looked at a MA document "Navigating the MCCJA, PKPA, ICPC and ICWA"
https://www.mass.gov/doc/navigation...compact-on-the-placement-of-children/download
The relevant info seems to be:
"The ICPC does not apply if: Court is giving custody to out of state parent pursuant to non-child welfare probate or family court order. ICPC Reg. No. 2 and 3 ...Child is transferred to a non-custodial parent in another state
provided that there is no evidence that the parent is unfit, the court does not seek such information, and court does not retain jurisdiction over placement. ICPC Reg. No. 3
This all says to me that they failed to do even rudimentary due diligence of AM. I can conclude that as he had a serious criminal history with violent offenses in MA. It strains any credulity to believe they did a background check and found his violent criminal history was irrelevant. Instead I think they simply did no due diligence by following the technical exception requirements and willfully ignoring his background by refusing to do any investigation. I see MA DCF's inaction as the prime causal factor in this tragedy.
But I'd love for anyone more knowledgeable like Althea to weigh in on whether I'm on the right track and if this seems likely. Because if so I think some serious changes need to be made and I want to remain informed so I can contact legislators and officials to try & make sure they don't just bury their failure here. But it seems like placing HM with AM without an ICPC may have been technically compliant but grossly negligent.
