Appeals panel hears dispute over DCF reasonable-efforts finding and missed parenting time

The Appeals Court heard argument in Department of Children and Families v. Father (24P.852) on whether the department made reasonable efforts to provide court-ordered parenting time for an incarcerated father and whether that reasonable-efforts determination is properly before the full court on appeal.

Appellant counsel Julia Healy argued the father sought parenting time repeatedly between 2022 and 2024, that DCF violated at least two juvenile-court orders and its own regulations (110 CMR), and that the department provided only three visits across an 18-month period when regular monthly contact was expected by policy. "Over all we want is visits," Healy told the panel, saying DCF's delays and the department's failure to follow up after facility transfers deprived the father of constitutionally protected parent-child relationship rights and reasonable efforts to reunify.

DCF counsel Matthew Price said the lower court correctly considered the relevant time window (June 2023 to May 2024) and found the department had made reasonable efforts during that period; he also asked the court to allow supplementation of the record and argued that some relief sought would be available in the juvenile court at an imminent proceeding. The department disputed that the permanency orders were appealable in the full-court posture if certain claims were dismissed and argued the single-justice path may be proper for some service claims.

The panel asked whether the appealed issue (reasonable efforts) is properly before the full court under G. L. c. 119, §29B and whether the father's claim is effectively a service dispute better resolved at the juvenile-court level. Counsel for the child's guardian ad litem and the Department both noted the risk of prolonging finality for the child if interlocutory appeals proceed. The court took the matter under advisement.