Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights; counsel dispute DCF ADA compliance and reasonableness of services

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument May 8 in an appeal from a trial court order terminating a mother’s parental rights. Appellant counsel Michael Penta asked the panel to vacate the decree and to direct the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to convene an updated ADA meeting under DCF policy.

Why it matters: The appeal raises whether DCF’s disability‑accommodation obligations affect the reasonable‑efforts analysis that courts must make in termination proceedings, and whether a parent’s failure to raise an ADA issue waives review when the department did not provide written ADA notice.

Appellant’s argument: Attorney Michael Penta said the mother has documented cognitive and developmental limitations and that DCF failed to provide the written ADA notice and follow its own disability policy. Penta asked the court to treat the policy as imposing affirmative obligations that go beyond ordinary reasonable‑effort inquiries and said the trial court did not meaningfully assess DCF’s ADA compliance. Penta argued the agency’s referral and placement practices — including a nine‑month wait for a one‑to‑one dual‑diagnosis program and lack of simplified, color‑coded service plans — left the parent without a meaningful opportunity to remedy deficiencies. He urged the court to interpret Gregory (the SJC precedent) narrowly and to account for the agency policy adopted after Gregory.

Agency and children’s counsel: Tracy Coral, representing DCF, told the panel the record showed the agency made multiple accommodations: it approved an individualized dual‑diagnosis provider, adjusted visitation locations and supervision, provided visual visit‑preparation charts, and coordinated with other service providers. Coral argued Gregory remains binding law and that the mother failed to preserve discrete ADA objections by motion practice below; she said the judge’s findings credited the department’s reasonable‑effort steps and the mother’s resistance to treatment and marijuana use.

Children’s counsel: Daniel Katz emphasized the department’s targeted steps — including visual, picture‑based visit guides prepared by the parent aide — and said the record shows repeated instances where the mother did not apply services in ways that yielded safer, minimally acceptable care.

Panel focus and procedural posture: The justices asked whether the ADA‑policy complaints were preserved below and whether Gregory remains controlling. Counsel debated whether a failure to provide the agency’s required ADA notice could excuse a parent’s failure to press the issue earlier. The panel took argument and the case was submitted.

Next step: The court will issue a written opinion addressing whether the trial court properly found parental unfitness and whether DCF complied with procedural and ADA‑policy obligations.