Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights; counsel dispute whether more time was warranted
Summary
The appeals court heard argument in Department of Children and Families v. Mother (docket 24P70) over whether the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated a mother's parental rights; counsel disputed whether the mother's progress in treatment justified more time.
A panel of the appeals court heard arguments in a child-protective appeal, Department of Children and Families v. Mother (docket 24P70), in which a mother challenged the trial court's termination of her parental rights.
Counsel for the mother, Lynn Eisenman, described recent progress: the mother had entered a residential treatment program as a condition of probation, had clean drug screens while in a zero-tolerance program, had full-time program requirements and, according to the program director, showed a changed pattern of engagement by March 2023. Eisenman asked the panel to vacate the termination and allow a six-month review period so the mother could demonstrate continued stability in a sober house and pursue mental-health treatment opportunities she had not yet completed. "By March of 2023 . . . the switch seemed to have flipped and things were changing for her," Eisenman said.
Department counsel Tracy Coral urged the court to affirm, citing the child's special and intensive needs and a long, documented history in the record of the mother's repeated failure to follow through on services, mental-health treatment, and parenting responsibilities. The department pointed to intermittent engagement, multiple involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations, and sparse contact with the child or foster family before trial. "This child is going to require so much follow through. . . This mother has such a long and very well documented history of not following through," Coral told the panel.
Counsel for the child urged affirmance and emphasized the stability of the kinship pre-adoptive home and the bond with the child's half sibling. Panel questions focused on the trial judge's factual findings, whether the mother's unfitness was temporary or likely to persist, the child's developmental and medical needs, and what additional time would accomplish for permanency planning.
The panel took the matter under advisement; no decision was announced at argument.
