In a Massachusetts Appeals Court session on October 3, 2025, the complexities of family law took center stage as justices Rubin, Shin, and Singh presided over a contentious case involving the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and a mother seeking to regain custody of her child. The case, which remains impounded, prohibits the use of names, focusing instead on the roles of the mother, father, and child.

Attorney Michael Penta, representing the mother, argued passionately for the court to vacate the order granting DCF permanent custody. He contended that the judge had failed to consider the department's lack of reasonable efforts towards reunification, which he claimed directly impacted the mother's fitness as a parent. Penta emphasized that the mother’s unfitness was temporary and linked to DCF's shortcomings, asserting that the court should have mandated a reunification plan instead of a permanent custody order.

The justices probed the implications of their potential decisions, questioning whether vacating the unfitness finding would disrupt the upcoming review and redetermination hearing scheduled for November 25. Penta maintained that the court's ruling could significantly influence the outcome of that hearing, which would assess the mother's current fitness to parent.

Colleen Duran, representing the father, echoed concerns about the DCF's failure to provide adequate support services, particularly for a working mother unfamiliar with the system. She highlighted the judge's acknowledgment of DCF's shortcomings in facilitating reunification efforts, arguing that the case should be reassessed with a focus on the family's needs.

Attorney Kristen McKenna, representing the child, noted the child’s desire to return to his mother, emphasizing the emotional toll of multiple foster placements. She argued that the lack of reasonable efforts by DCF to support the family during the initial removal process was a critical factor in the case.

The department's representative, Arjun Jay Kumar, acknowledged the ongoing goal of reunification but defended the initial custody decision, citing evidence of the mother's past unfitness. He argued that the court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, despite the judge's recognition of DCF's failures.

As the session concluded, the justices faced the challenging task of balancing the rights of parents with the best interests of the child. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how family reunification efforts are handled in Massachusetts, particularly in cases where the department's actions—or lack thereof—play a pivotal role in parental fitness determinations. The court's decision will not only impact the lives of the involved families but also shape the future of child welfare practices in the state.