Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court considers whether judge erred in termination order after child bonded with pre‑adoptive family
Summary
Argument focused on whether the probate judge made the statutory findings required when a judge relies on a child's bond with substitute caregivers as a decisive factor under M.G.L. c. 210, §3(c)(7); mother’s lawyer asked for remand, DCF and child’s counsel urged affirmation.
The Appeals Court heard argument in Department of Children and Families v. Mother (No. 24749) on whether the probate and family court erred in terminating a mother’s parental rights without making the specific factual findings required when the bond between a child and pre‑adoptive caregivers is a decisive factor.
Appellant counsel Jennifer DeFeo, representing the mother, told the court that Massachusetts precedent requires a judge to identify: the nature of the bond between the child and the substitute caregivers; why severing that bond would cause serious psychological harm; what means to mitigate that harm were considered; and why those means were inadequate. DeFeo argued the probate judge failed to make those findings under M.G.L. ch. 210, §3(c)(7) and that several other adverse findings were stale, clearly erroneous, or lacked a nexus to present fitness. DeFeo said the record showed the child had an early bond with the mother and that DCF continued visitation until October 2022; she asked the court to vacate and remand for the required findings.
Julie Gallup, counsel for the Department of Children and Families, urged the court to affirm. Gallup told the panel the mother has a long history of child‑neglect allegations, substance‑use problems and limited insight into parental deficiencies, and she argued that even if some past problems predated the child, the mother’s lack of insight and case history created ongoing safety concerns. Gallup also emphasized evidence presented at trial about the child’s severe anxiety and the pre‑adoptive family’s stable caregiving and support for adoption.
Eric Soule, counsel for the appellee child, said the record supports termination: he described evidence that the child lacked a bond with the mother from early in life, that the child developed a close, stable bond with the pre‑adoptive family, and that clinicians concluded moving the child would be traumatic. Soule told the court the judge’s findings, though compressed, were supported by the evidentiary record and that the juvenile‑court and GAL materials provided the factual detail underlying the termination decision.
The justices questioned counsel about the scope and clarity of the probate judge’s factual findings, the distinction between current fitness and historical conduct, and whether the record demonstrates adequate analysis under M.G.L. ch. 210, §3(c)(7). The argument concluded and the case was submitted for decision.
