Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Reasonable Efforts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to DCF’s ‘reasonable efforts’ after out-of-state placements and reduced visits
Summary
In the Department of Children and Families v. Mother (24P765) the panel considered whether DCF failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family after placing three children in New York, including whether DCF delayed family therapy and reduced mother’s visitation following the move.
The appellate panel heard argument in the Department of Children and Families v. Mother, docket number 24P765 (impounded), about whether the juvenile court erred after finding DCF had failed to make reasonable efforts — and, if so, whether the agency remedied those failures before trial.
Mother’s argument
Molly Odey, representing the mother (appellant), told the court the record shows repeated requests by the mother for family therapy and that DCF did not implement referrals or meaningful out-of-state visitation arrangements for years. Counsel emphasized that the children were moved to New York in mid-2021 without the mother receiving advance notice and that, after the move, DCF reduced visits to a single monthly two-hour session — a schedule the mother said was onerous to arrange and harmful to the relationship.
DCF’s response
Julie Gallup, arguing for the department, said DCF made repeated efforts, including offering in-person home visits and referrals, and that the children exhibited varying and, at times, persistent reluctance to meet with the mother. Gallup stressed the record contains diagnoses and provider reports indicating the older children had symptoms consistent with trauma or PTSD and that the mother did not consistently engage with services, missed appointments or decline to follow up when the department’s efforts stalled.
Children’s position
Lane Goldberg, counsel for the children, urged the court to affirm termination orders, saying the children — after years in care — opposed reunification, reported traumatic experiences while in the custody of their parents, and that mother’s insights and engagement were insufficient to support reunification.
Court focus and remedy discussion
The panel queried the timing and content of the juvenile court’s reasonable-efforts findings, the remedial steps the trial judge ordered in November 2023, and whether a continuance of the adoption/termination hearing would have been the appropriate remedy if DCF’s efforts were deficient. Counsel and justices also discussed the legal weight of older children’s preferences and whether those preferences should be dispositive.
Outcome
The panel took the matter under advisement. The mother asked the court to vacate the termination decrees and remand for further proceedings; DCF and the children’s counsel urged affirmance.
