Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to juvenile court’s termination of parental rights; DCF cites father’s history and incarceration
Summary
The appeals court heard argument March 10 in 2024P964, Department of Children and Families v. FOD, over whether the juvenile court correctly terminated a father’s parental rights where the father had lengthy criminal contacts and was incarcerated at trial.
The appeals court heard argument March 10 in 2024P964, Department of Children and Families v. FOD, a care‑and‑protection appeal in which the Department of Children and Families (DCF) asked the court to affirm a juvenile court judgment terminating a father’s parental rights.
Joan Altimore, counsel for the father, told the panel the record shows father was incarcerated at trial and that paternity and visitation questions were complex and contested; counsel argued DCF had not shown with credible evidence that the father’s incarceration would render him permanently unfit to parent in the foreseeable future. Altimore said father had signed releases, engaged in substance‑abuse classes in custody, and pursued a HiSET (GED) while incarcerated.
Angelica de Ron, arguing for DCF, said the juvenile court properly found “ample, uncontroverted evidence” that father had a pattern of criminal behavior (including drug possession/trafficking and violent charges) that made him unavailable to parent for the indefinite future. De Ron told the panel the record shows father conceded unfitness at trial, had a long criminal history dating back to 2014, and had pending charges and segregation in custody that hindered service engagement.
The child’s attorney, Morgan Russell, urged the court to reject an argument based on mere “hope.” As Russell told the panel, “hope is not a course of action,” and she argued the record contains no credible evidence the father would establish a stable parenting connection and that the child currently has a stable pre‑adoptive home.
Panel questioning focused on timing and procedural details: when DCF first learned the father was a putative parent; whether voluntary acknowledgment paperwork was mailed and credited; the effect of pandemic‑era restrictions on in‑person contact and paternity proceedings; the extent of DCF’s outreach and whether the department merely listed requirements or actively assisted the father in meeting them; and the expected length of incarceration based on open charges. Counsel acknowledged some evidence the father took classes in custody but said there was no concrete evidence showing cessation of criminal conduct.
The court heard argument from all three advocates and took the case under advisal; no ruling issued at argument.
Why the case matters: The appeal addresses the juvenile court’s findings on best interests and reasonable likelihood of future parental fitness when a putative father has been incarcerated and has an intermittent history of contact with the child. DCF’s position emphasizes public‑safety and permanency planning; advocates for the father highlighted procedural and paternity timing issues.
Outcome at argument: No decision was issued; the case was submitted for decision.
