Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Reasonable Efforts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to DCF termination: did agency make reasonable efforts with incarcerated father?
Summary
A father appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights, arguing the Department of Children and Families failed to make required reasonable efforts to support visitation and reunification while he was incarcerated.
The Appeals Court heard an appeal in Department of Children and Families v. Father (Docket 24-P-1260) over the juvenile court’s termination of a father's parental rights. The father argued DCF failed to make statutorily required "reasonable efforts" to facilitate contact and reunification while he was incarcerated, and that the omission undermined the juvenile court’s decision.
Appellate counsel told the panel that the father was treated as a putative parent, received an action plan while incarcerated, and wanted visits but was never offered or scheduled prison visits the department’s regulations require for incarcerated parents. "When you have someone in prison, it's a special circumstance," counsel said, arguing DCF's action plan contained tasks the father could not complete from custody and the agency did not proactively pursue the prison‑visit steps its own regulation contemplates.
The Department’s attorney, Tracy Coral, replied that the record showed the case involved multiple complicating factors (including the pandemic, the father’s repeated statements that he expected imminent release, and gaps in contact) and that the appellant never preserved a reasonable‑efforts challenge in the juvenile court. Coral told the panel that DCF attempted to contact the father and provided action‑plan tasks and that the judge properly found the agency made reasonable efforts.
Counsel for the child urged the Appeals Court to affirm, emphasizing the father’s long criminal record, recent relapse on cocaine and an incident that led to SWAT involvement; the child’s lawyer said those factors supported the juvenile court’s finding that the father was currently unfit and unlikely to be fit in the near term.
The court questioned whether the reasonable‑efforts claim was waived by failure to raise it below and whether the record contained sufficient fact‑finding to review how DCF handled prison visits and service planning. The panel took the case under advisement.
Discussion vs. action: Oral argument only; the court requested citations the parties referenced and took the appeal under advisement.
