BOSTON — The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard an appeal challenging a juvenile court decree that terminated a father's parental rights, focusing on whether the Department of Children and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father was unfit and that the unfitness was likely to continue.

Father's appellate counsel, Nathan Bench, urged reversal, arguing the record shows positive parent-child bonds, engagement in services at times, and that DCF failed to make adequate reasonable efforts to provide supports that would permit reunification. "The evidence of father's engagement with the children, his visits were very positive," Bench told the panel, and he argued the judge's concerns about substance use did not establish a continuing nexus between substance use and harm or neglect.

The Department of Children and Families, through Matthew Price, urged the court to affirm, saying the record shows a decades-long pattern of substance use and mental-health instability, repeated removals, missed medical follow-ups, domestic violence in the children's presence, and behavior the juvenile court reasonably concluded left the children at ongoing risk.

Children's counsel, Sean Grammel, told the panel the children were "a mess" when they entered care in 2022, citing night terrors, medical needs, and instability. Grammel said the father twice acknowledged he "couldn't" take the children home when asked at trial, and argued those admissions, the repeated removals, and the parents' inability to sustain sobriety supported termination and freed the children for adoption by their current custodians, whom Grammel described as stable, experienced foster-adoptive parents.

Why this matters: termination-of-parental-rights appeals require courts to weigh evidence about fitness, the likelihood of future improvement, and the children's best interests. The juvenile court found paternal unfitness based on substance use, mental-health concerns, domestic violence, missed appointments, and inconsistent visits; the appeals court will decide whether those factual findings are supported and whether termination was the appropriate remedy.

At argument the panel asked detailed questions about the record's chronology, the parties' efforts to provide services and childcare, and disputed facts about the father's mental-health statements at trial (including comments the trial judge perceived as concerning). The court took the matter under advisement.

Speakers included Nathan Bench (appellant counsel), Matthew Price (DCF counsel), and Sean Grammel (attorney for the children). The juvenile court record and trial transcript will inform the panel's forthcoming written decision.