The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled a judge who participated in cases in which a mother had her first two children removed from her custody was wrong to order her third, newborn daughter immediately taken from her last year.

The court ruled the judge improperly relied on a Department of Children and Families document that was not admitted as evidence and on her knowledge of the first two cases to declare the baby at immediate risk - The justices ruled this violated the mother's right to a fair and impartial hearing of her case, and ordered an immediate new hearing in juvenile court - at which a judge could still order the baby removed.

The ruling is a victory for a guardian appointed for the infant; he brought the case, not the parents.

The court ruling details some of the events in the case. In May, 2008, the mother, not named in the ruling, agreed to give up custody of the two older children. The court does not specify exactly what she had done wrong, but wrote that, in the case of a son, "she allegedly failed to follow through with her son's prescribed care after he was released from a psychiatric hospitalization." He is now 9, the other child, a girl, is 7.

On Dec. 16, 2008, she gave birth to a daughter. Two days later, DCF swooped in and removed the baby:

The department had in fact decided three months earlier to seek temporary custody of Zita when she was born based, it would appear, solely on the department's view of the mother's inadequate parenting of her two older children. The department did not provide notice to the mother before removing Zita.

The court said the judge - and DCF - should have been more careful:

We recognize the challenges that confront a judge who has presided over a case that is closely related to a new proceeding; it may be impossible to erase a judge's memory of the prior case. But each party is entitled to an impartial magistrate and a decision based on the evidence presented in her case. ...

Zita's removal by the Commonwealth from her custodial parent implicates constitutional rights of the highest order. ... When we strip from the decision below the information contained in the petition, which was not in evidence, and information the judge may have learned from the earlier care and protection cases, also not in evidence, we are left with grave concerns that the department fell short of meeting its statutory obligation of demonstrating that the newborn infant was in "immediate danger of serious abuse or neglect" and that "immediate removal" was necessary to protect her.

Complete ruling.