Appeals court hears whether DCF made reasonable efforts, ADA accommodations before terminating parental rights

An appellate panel heard argument over whether the Department of Children and Families (DCF) made legally adequate efforts, including disability accommodations, before the termination of a mother's parental rights and whether the trial court erred by finding no bond and denying post-adoption visitation.

Attorney Dana Shuniverse, representing the mother, told the panel that the case centers on whether DCF's efforts were reasonable given the mother's documented mental-health disability and that DCF failed to convene an ADA meeting recommended by its mental-health specialist prior to a child's removal. "We do believe that had DCF leaned in and complied with their own disability policy, the outcome could have been very different," Shuniverse said.

The mother's counsel asked the court to consider the reasonable-efforts claim even if it was not raised at trial, arguing the issue was central to the case because the mother had a long history with DCF and her disability affected her ability to use standard services. Shuniverse also asked the panel to remand to reconsider whether the lower court erred in denying any post-adoption visitation, noting the mother attended regular visits for years and that one child is autistic.

Jeremy Bayless, counsel for DCF, argued the inadequacy-of-efforts claim had to be developed in the trial court so the record could show what alternative services existed and whether the mother would have participated. Bayless pointed to record evidence that the mother repeatedly declined or failed to engage in services and foster-care reviews and that she displayed hostile and abusive conduct during visits. "Even if the department had failed to make reasonable efforts," Bayless told the panel, "we're still left with a parent who refused, who was overtly hostile, demeaning, and abusive to the children during visits," and he said the record supported the trial court's best-interest finding.

Counsel for the mother said DCF staff had recommended an ADA meeting and that the department did not hold it. Shuniverse described accommodations she said were lacking: hands-on support to participate in children's medical and developmental appointments, referral to education about autism, and invitations to meaningful participation in care planning. DCF counsel replied that ADA meetings are initiated when a consumer requests an accommodation and that the mother denied having a disability and refused to attend most foster-care review meetings needed to evaluate services.

At issue before the panel were two questions: whether the appellate court may review a claim about reasonable efforts raised for the first time on appeal when the claim is central to the outcome, and whether the trial record shows actual harm or a lack of bond sufficient to justify severing the parent-child relationship and denying post-adoption visitation. The trial judge declined to order post-termination visitation, finding the children had bonded with caretakers and that visits with the mother were disruptive.

The record cited by both sides includes repeated DCF observations of the mother's behavior, an internal recommendation that an ADA meeting occur, and testimony about the course of visits. Counsel debated specific visit-frequency reductions: the mother's visits were initially scheduled four times a week to accommodate breastfeeding and were later reduced; counsel described an earlier figure of more than 200 visits a year reduced to about 12 a year prior to trial. DCF said the reductions happened as the mother's concerning behaviors increased; the mother's counsel said the frequency reduction and lack of tailored accommodations contributed to the outcome.

No decision was announced from the bench. After argument by both sides and noting the child had submitted on the brief, the panel took the case under submission.

The oral argument included direct references to DCF policy 23-04 and an "addendum 72" describing internal disability procedures, and to precedent the parties cited (identified in briefs as Adoption of Gregory and Adoption of Garrett).