Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights in impoundment case labeled 'Brianna'

Steve Rosenthal, counsel for the mother in the impounded adoption case identified in court as “Brianna,” asked the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Feb. 4 to vacate a termination of parental rights and remand for further proceedings. Rosenthal argued that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) failed to provide reasonable accommodations under its disability policy and that the agency never completed recommended psychiatric evaluations or individualized action plans that might have supported reunification.

Rosenthal told the panel the record included long‑standing clinical recommendations — notably a 2018 court‑clinic recommendation for a psychiatric medication evaluation — that DCF did not carry out. He said mother’s mental‑health condition and medication compliance were central and that the agency’s practice of offering accommodations only when parents asked for them left a parent who disavows need and resists engagement without the assistance DCF’s policy envisioned.

Counsel for the child argued the trial court did not adequately explain how it weighed the child’s stated preference and urged vacatur and remand so the trial court could articulate how the child’s voice was considered. DCF counsel Richard Salcedo defended the trial court’s findings and said the record showed ongoing services were available to the mother, that the child had been in a stable pre‑adoptive placement for years, and that the mother had not demonstrated sustained improvement despite multiple reunification attempts.

The court questioned counsel about what specific additional accommodations would have made a difference, about the contemporaneousness of assessments, and about the weight to give a child’s stated preference. No decision was announced at argument.