burden on the children. The failure of the girls’ trial counsel to elicit, or the failure of the judge to make a precise finding on, the girls’ views with respect to the termination decrees was not error. Moreover, there is no indication that the judge was punishing the father by terminating his parental rights. See Adoption of Helen, 429 Mass. 856, 862 n.10 (1999). See also Adoption of Don, 435 Mass. 158, 168 (2001). There can be no doubt that the judge’s termination order was based on her assessment of the over-all damage that the father’s noncompliance had wrought on the girls’ lives, and her determination that they should be protected from the uncertainty of repeated litigation and their father’s destructive behavior in the future. See Adoption of Willow, supra at 641, 647-648 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion. Although a finding of parental
holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  recognizing mutual duty of each parent to provide children with support and education suitable to the childrens circumstances holding that evidence of the fathers conduct in stabbing the childrens mother alleged to endanger the childrens physical and emotional wellbeing is pertinent to and entwined in the issue of the childrens best interest recognizing childrens need for stability and permanency and thus upholding placement of children in permanent guardianship of foster parents recognizing that prolonged pattern of failed treatment threatens childrens future stability