The Appeals Court took oral argument in a partially impounded termination-of‑parental‑rights appeal that raised questions about vacating termination decrees and the availability of relief under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and whether the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process denied parents or children an avenue for administrative appeal in the receiving state.
Children’s counsel Natalie Hopple asked the panel to vacate termination decrees and the Rule 60 decision, arguing the children are effectively “institutionalized legal orphans” and that the receiving state’s ICPC decision — which the transcript shows was initially approved and later rescinded by the receiving state — left no meaningful appellate pathway for the family. Hopple said more than 50% of U.S. states now recognize some path to reinstatement of parental rights and urged a child‑centric approach.
Father’s counsel Sharon Sullivan Puccini argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief because the father had shown material and substantial changed circumstances since the termination hearing, including long‑term sobriety and stable housing in a recovery program; counsel said witnesses and documentary evidence supporting the father’s recovery were excluded below. The department and mother’s counsel opposed relief and argued the trial judge correctly limited the Rule 60(b) inquiry to the father’s changed circumstances and that the judge made independent fitness findings that were not resolved by the ICPC outcome.
Department counsel Julie Gallup said the single‑justice order constrained the Rule 60(b) inquiry to the father’s changed circumstances and noted the department’s continuing oversight under G. L. c.119, §29B (permanency hearings); the department also opposed expanding the record on appeal to pursue post‑judgment placements. The court took argument and will issue a decision after advisement.