Appeals court weighs DCF’s permanent custody orders after contested service and safety findings

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard an appeal of Department of Children and Families (DCF) orders that adjudicated a mother permanently unfit and placed two younger children in DCF custody. Counsel and the court discussed whether the record showed a permanent inability to parent and whether DCF carried its burden to provide services and keep the oldest child safe while in care.

Appellant’s position: Julia Fisher Neer, representing the mother, argued the department failed to provide timely, meaningful assistance and that DCF had not proven permanent unfitness. Neer said the oldest child — who spent much of her life with the mother and, per trial testimony, did best with her mother — continued to face serious harms while in DCF custody, including sexual assault and suspected commercial exploitation. Neer asked the court to vacate findings of permanent unfitness and to remand for further proceedings that would account for systemic gaps in services and the department’s post‑removal conduct.

Children’s counsel and DCF response: Sean Grammel, counsel for the oldest child, urged vacatur of the permanent custody decree so the child could remain living with her mother on a stable basis; Grammel said the child’s best—documented—placement was with the mother and that stability required legal custody to return to the parent. Lynn Murphy, for DCF, countered that the record showed significant and long‑standing mental‑health and behavioral challenges for both the mother and the oldest child; Murphy described multiple placement disruptions and concluded the department had provided extensive services and proper case management given the case’s clinical complexity.

Why it matters: The appeal raises two distinct but related issues: whether DCF met the high burden required to obtain a permanent adjudication of parental unfitness, and whether DCF’s custody decisions and placement practices kept children safe while under state care. A ruling could affect how appellate courts review long, complex child‑welfare records and how they weigh systemic service failures in permanent‑custody determinations.

Substantive disputes: Counsel debated timing and adequacy of DCF action plans (the mother’s counsel said action plans arrived late and were not meaningful), housing and disability accommodations for the mother, and the department’s record keeping and placement choices for an older child who suffered grave harms while in care. The mother’s counsel acknowledged concession of current unfitness for the two younger children but maintained the oldest child was not permanently unfit and should not have had parental rights terminated.

Courtroom exchanges: Justices questioned thresholds for temporary versus permanent unfitness, the practical effects of those labels (including the burden shift on the parent), and how DCF compared post‑incident conduct by victims and by alleged perpetrators when assessing credibility and service needs.

Ending: The appeals panel took argument and did not issue an immediate ruling. Parties were directed to the record and given opportunity to submit citations as requested by the bench.