of Massachusetts has established policies of providing court-appointed counsel to indigent parents faced with termination of them parental rights and of giving those parents the right to effective assistance of counsel. See Department of Public Welfare v. J.K.B., 379 Mass. 1, 3-6, 393 N.E.2d 406 (1979); In re Stephen, 401 Mass. 144, 149, 514 N.E.2d 1087 (1987); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 29. This court should not subvert that policy by using Andrews’s indigency and her use of the court-appointed counsel against her. Courts have found, in some situations, that violation of an affirmative duty to disclose information can relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving reliance. See, e.g., Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The defendants, by affirmatively
holding that reliance on a material omission may be presumed in a rule 10b5 case recognizing defense in securities case recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding evidence of repayment was irrelevant in case involving title misrepresentations to obtain loans holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery