Appeals court hears challenge to DCF permanency decision after denial of motion to reopen

The panel considered Department of Children and Families and Another v. Mother, docket no. 24P949, a care and protection appeal in which the mother challenges a trial judge’s finding of parental unfitness and the denial of the mother’s motion to reopen evidence after she had been briefly incarcerated during the trial period.

Why it matters: Care and protection cases use a high standard — the trial judge must find current parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence — and decisions about whether a judge abused discretion in denying a motion to reopen can determine whether children are returned to parents or remain in DCF custody.

Appellate counsel for the mother, Julia Healy, told the panel the trial judge abused discretion by finding the mother unfit because she was unavailable on the day of trial while in custody for nine days; counsel said the mother had twice requested a short continuance and represented she expected release within days of trial. Healy argued the court could reasonably have reserved a finding until the mother’s custody status resolved.

Counsel for the child urged vacation of the permanent‑custody decision and a remand. The child’s counsel told the panel the lower court’s findings were stale and lacked detail about the mother’s proactive steps while pregnant and the concrete placement plan she had proposed; counsel faulted DCF for not completing a placement study of the proposed caregiver earlier in the case.

Department counsel, William Cuddell, replied that the judge’s decision was supported by the record and that the court had considered the totality of the evidence. DCF and its witnesses recounted mothers’ prior substance‑use history, program terminations for altercations with program staff, and other instability that the judge viewed as relevant to the child’s immediate safety. DCF told the panel the mother had the opportunity to seek a redetermination in the trial court since the permanency order was entered; counsel noted docket activity but told the panel that, as a practical matter, a parent who does not secure relief below may still seek further review.

The panel asked detailed questions about what evidence was in the record, whether the judge had discretion to proceed in the mother’s short absence, and whether DCF had timely investigated the caregiver the mother proposed for placement. The transcript shows disputed facts about whether the mother had subsequent arrests or new charges after release; counsel reported they had no up‑to‑date material in the appellate appendix on post‑trial developments.

Court action: The panel took argument and indicated it would decide after reviewing the record.