Appeals court hears mother’s claim that DCF failed to address housing and disability needs in long-running child-welfare case

An appeals court heard oral argument in case No. 240934—Department of Children and Families and Others v. Mother and Others—where an appellant (the mother) said the agency violated its statutory duty by failing to provide housing assistance and court-ordered accommodations, contributing to multi-generation family trauma and the loss of her parental rights.

The mother, identified in the record only as the appellant because parts of the case are impounded, told the court she was asking judges to consider “profound and persistent systemic barriers by the Department of Children and Families,” saying those barriers contravened the Commonwealth’s child-welfare mandate under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 119. She said housing instability and an untreated pattern of codependency—exacerbated by what she described as the agency’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a diagnosed nonverbal learning disorder—left her unable to reunify with her child.

The mother said she has experienced long-term housing instability since aging out of foster care, that her children were reunified with her twice despite unresolved housing and relationship issues, and that she currently rents a room and receives disability benefits that make independent housing unaffordable. She told the court she is allowed only four parent-child visits per year and that the child, who will be 11 on the sixteenth of the month, last lived with her in February 2017. “Had I been in affordable housing or had I been afforded the independent living program when I aged out or the FUP program upon those 2 prior reunifications, I’m very confident that my children would still be with me to this day,” she said.

Department of Children and Families attorney Jeremy Bayless responded that the juvenile-court record — including a 2018 trial — shows the mother was found unfit to parent after a full trial and that the department repeatedly made referrals and provided service plans. “The department social workers are not psychiatrists, they’re not psychologists. They cannot diagnose, they cannot treat,” Bayless told the panel, describing the agency’s role as creating action plans and referring parents to therapeutic and housing services. He said the record shows the mother began but failed to complete multiple therapies and anger-management programs, and that housing barriers were compounded by evictions and shelter- program terminations cited in court reports.

Bayless also told the court the child has been in care since removal in April 2016, and that years in care and a lack of parental improvement supported the juvenile court’s finding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. “This child has a right to stay and know that her current living situation, where she is happy, where the evidence reflects that she is doing well … is her permanent home,” Bayless said, urging the appeals panel to affirm the termination order.

Colleen Durant, attorney for the appellee child, urged the court to affirm the juvenile court’s decision and emphasized the length of time the child has been without permanency. “This case has been pending for 7 long years,” Durant said, noting the record includes multiple 51A reports, documented incidents of domestic violence and a history of shelter placements and evictions the lawyers said undermined housing stability.

During questioning, the panel asked the mother to point to where in the trial record the court had ordered the specific accommodations she contends DCF failed to provide. The mother said a judge had ordered reasonable accommodations related to her learning disorder during trial but also acknowledged difficulty recalling exact dates because of her disability. Bayless and Durant said that specific compliance claims had not been preserved at trial and that the record shows repeated opportunities for services that the mother did not sustain.

The attorneys told the court that the juvenile court issued an order terminating the mother’s parental rights on Aug. 2, 2023, following the earlier trial and subsequent proceedings. At the end of oral argument the panel announced the matter was submitted for decision.

The appeals court record includes references to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 119 and to multiple 51A reports; the juvenile-court removal of the child occurred in April 2016 and the termination order was issued in August 2023. The appeals court’s decision was not announced at the hearing and is pending.

The case highlights competing factual narratives in long-running child-welfare litigation: the appellant emphasizes agency failures to secure housing and disability accommodations, while the Department and the child’s lawyer point to trial findings, a history of incomplete engagement in services, and documented safety incidents as supporting the juvenile court’s termination order.