The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument Tuesday in Department of Children and Families v. Mother, docket 24P0984, over a trial court’s finding that a mother was unfit and the subsequent termination of her parental rights after medical staff discovered nine fractures in her infant.

"My name is Mariana Yang, and I represent the appellant mother in this case who asks that the judgments be vacated, and that, the case be remanded for further hearing," attorney Mariana Yang told the three‑judge panel. Yang argued that the fractures were discovered when the child was about 3 months old and that there was no evidence proving the mother inflicted the injuries or that she knew of them.

Yang said medical records show the child was examined multiple times — she stated four physical examinations in the first three months — and that the records contained affirmative findings that there were no indications of abuse during those visits. She argued the Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) action plan tasks were not tailored to an identified parental deficiency and that the trial judge relied on pretextual factors, including a social worker’s testimony that the department would not recommend reunification unless there was an explanation for the injuries.

"There was 9 injuries at various stages of healing," the court noted during questioning. Yang acknowledged that the mother did not complete every task in the DCF action plan, including a psychological evaluation, a bonding assessment and parenting classes, and that beginning in October 2021 the mother rescinded some releases and limited direct communication with DCF. Yang argued, however, that those compliance issues do not supply the specific findings required to support termination when the underlying alleged parental deficiency was not identified.

Assistant Attorney General Konstantin Trejikoff, arguing for DCF, urged the court to affirm. "The real reason was the mother's repeated failure to be a safe parental resource for the child," Trejikoff told the panel. He said the trial court found the injuries were intentionally inflicted and emphasized that the child had been in the sole care of three adults — the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother — during the period in which the injuries occurred.

Trejikoff further argued that, under precedents cited by the department (including the line of cases the parties referred to as "Lorna" decisions), unexplained injuries inflicted while a child is in a parent's care and the parents' failure to avail themselves of services can support termination even if the record does not identify the specific perpetrator. He also defended the trial court's assessment of the grandmother’s guardianship petition, saying the judge found the grandmother did not know the child’s special needs and would have required DCF overcapacity waivers.

Child‑counsel Carrie Bagnall, representing the child, asked the court to affirm the judgment. She characterized the injuries as "severe" and "intentionally inflicted," and said the medical and investigative record establish the fractures occurred during the infant’s first 12 weeks and that the record does not permit identification of a specific perpetrator. Bagnall also described the child’s bond with the current foster family and noted the trial court’s finding that the placement met the child’s best interests.

The judges questioned both sides about key factual points: who had day‑to‑day care when the fractures likely occurred, why prior medical visits did not detect the injuries, whether the mother had insight into the child's special needs, and whether the trial court made adequate findings about alternative permanency plans such as guardianship with the maternal grandmother. Counsel for the mother asked for a remand for additional hearings on alternative placement consideration; counsel for DCF and the child defended the sufficiency of the trial record.

No decision was announced from the bench at the conclusion of argument. The appeal remains pending before the three‑judge panel.