Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights amid disputed permanency plan

An appeals panel heard arguments in Department of Children and Families v. Child 1 and Others (24‑P‑1053) about whether the trial court erred in terminating a father’s parental rights and whether the Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) adoption plan was adequate.

Why it matters: The case presents the tension that sometimes arises when a parent is found unfit but children oppose adoption and DCF’s permanency plan lacks up‑to‑date, case‑specific details. The appellate court’s decision will affect how trial courts weigh termination, the availability of guardianship as an alternative, and required detail in permanency plans under the controlling statutes.

Charles Levin, counsel for the younger child, urged reversal of the termination decree and remand for further consideration of whether termination was required in light of the child’s age and strong bond with his father. Levin argued DCF offered no recent, concrete permanency plan: the most recent written adoption plan he cited was from April–May 2021 and, he said, lacked the detail a judge needs to evaluate adoptability. Levin noted the younger child has been in foster care placements for about four years and argued adoption appears unlikely because the child is strongly opposed to being adopted; Levin asked whether guardianship (which does not require termination of parental rights) had been adequately explored.

Counsel for the father (identified in the record as counsel for father) acknowledged the trial finding of unfitness but argued the judge relied on concerns that termination would “loosen” the child’s attachments in ways that could permit permanency; counsel urged that remand should allow DCF to develop a more detailed plan and that termination was not necessary to achieve guardianship if that option were pursued.

Marta Diaz, counsel for the older child, told the court the older child (now 15) had been in his current foster home about a year and a half and reported he continued to oppose adoption. Diaz said she had asked the foster family and child whether guardianship had been discussed and was told no; she confirmed there was no identified guardian in the record for either child.

Courtland (Court) Murphy, appearing for DCF, argued the termination decree should be affirmed. Murphy said the department’s goal remained permanency through adoption or guardianship and that termination can increase the likelihood of a stable, permanent placement because potential adoptive or guardian families are often reluctant to accept a placement where the legal parent remains able to litigate custody. The department stressed the trial court had made detailed findings about the children’s special needs and the parent’s long history of instability and unfitness.

Panel questions focused on whether DCF had provided a current, practical adoption or guardianship plan that addressed the children’s special needs and whether retaining parental rights would foreseeably disrupt a stable placement. Counsel and the panel discussed a recent unpublished decision the parties referenced (Osborne) in which the court reversed a termination of parental rights while distinguishing custody outcomes. The panel also asked practical questions about permanency hearings scheduled in the trial court and whether counsel could identify evidence that the father would seek to reopen custody in a way that would disrupt a stable guardianship; counsel said there was no clear record evidence that the father would do so.

No decision was announced from the bench. The appeal presents factual and statutory questions about when termination of parental rights is necessary to secure a child’s best interest and how detailed a permanency plan must be.