Appeals court weighs termination of parental rights after judge found mother's chronic mental-health crises put children at risk

The appeals court on Wednesday reviewed a juvenile-court termination-of-parental-rights judgment in Department of Children and Families v. Mother, focusing on whether the trial judge properly relied on evidence of repeated psychiatric hospitalizations and current risk to determine that termination was necessary for the children's safety.

Tamika O'Brien, counsel for the mother, argued the judge substituted history for current unfitness and should have considered less-restrictive alternatives such as guardianship. She noted that by early 2023 the mother had stable housing, compliance with medication, a year of stability with the same therapist, parenting classes and a psychological evaluation. "History is relevant, but it can't be a substitute for evidence of current fitness," O'Brien told the panel.

Department attorney Jeremy Bayless replied that the trial judge concluded the mother has a longstanding pattern of dramatic decompensation and eight hospitalizations over 12 years, and that the mother's testimony at trial suggested she still lacked insight into the triggers and impact of her episodes. "The judge credited that she was doing better but concluded it was not a problem that had been remedied such that the children would not be at an unacceptable level of risk in her care," Bayless said.

Counsel for the children emphasized the children's need for stability and the record showing the younger child had witnessed at least one hospitalization and trauma. The older child's attorney told the court the older child supported returning to the mother but was 11 and expressed desire in that moment; the younger child's attorney said the child had been in custody for most of her life and sought permanence in a pre-adoptive home.

Justices pressed both sides on the temporal question: what does "current" mean for a parent with episodic hospitalizations occurring over many years, and how long must stability persist to rebut a pattern? A justice observed that the longest prior interval without hospitalization had been about 18 months and asked whether a year of stability was sufficient. O'Brien said the judge should have explored alternatives and that the department had not shown adoption was imminent for these children, making termination premature.

The court also discussed the judge's factual findings about the children and whether the judge erred in treating both children the same when their needs differed in the written findings. The panel took the matter under submission.