In a recent court session, the appellate counsel for a child argued for the affirmation of a lower court's decision regarding visitation rights following the termination of parental rights. Michelle Mosherit, representing the child, emphasized that the findings of fact were detailed and justified the ruling against post-termination visitation.

Mosherit highlighted that the child, who entered state custody at just one day old, has never lived with her biological parents. Instead, she has formed a bond with her pre-adoptive mother, who is the only maternal figure the child recognizes. The counsel contended that the judge's decision to deny visitation was appropriate, as the lack of contact over 13 months did not establish a meaningful relationship between the child and her biological mother.

Responding to concerns raised about the judge's rationale for denying visitation, Mosherit stated that the court's primary focus must be the best interest of the child. She argued that allowing visits would not serve this interest, as the child does not know her mother. Furthermore, Mosherit defended the admission of evidence from previous care and protection cases, asserting that it was relevant to understanding the parents' history and any steps taken to improve their parenting capabilities.

The court's decision reflects a commitment to prioritizing the child's well-being in complex custody matters, reinforcing the notion that parental rights do not automatically confer visitation privileges when such arrangements are deemed contrary to the child's best interests.