Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Termination Parental Rights Dcf Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears DCF termination-of-parental-rights appeal focused on adequacy of disability accommodations
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Jan. 15 heard argument in Docket No. 24318 over whether the Department of Children and Families provided sufficient accommodations to a mother with cognitive limitations before terminating parental rights to a medically complex child.
The Appeals Court heard argument Jan. 15 in Docket No. 24318, Department of Children and Families v. Mother, an impounded termination-of-parental-rights appeal that turns on the mother’s cognitive limitations, DCF’s provision of services and the child’s intensive medical needs.
Attorney Myrna Diaz, representing the mother, argued the record shows the department did not provide accommodations calibrated to the mother’s cognitive and memory problems and therefore did not allow her a full chance to demonstrate fitness for reunification. Diaz pointed to a 2022 DCF disability policy (cited in the briefs and transcript) and argued specific steps — such as convening experts with mother and counsel, modifying action plans to set concrete goals, and arranging hands-on medical training — were not adequately provided. Diaz said mother repeatedly asked DCF for help and that supervised visits were limited in scope, preventing the mother from being taught g-tube feeding and other complex medical tasks.
Jeremy Bales, counsel for the Department of Children and Families, answered that DCF repeatedly offered services, action plans and parent-aide referrals, but that the mother refused meetings, cancelled services, declined to share reports and did not follow through on scheduled appointments. Bales told the panel the record shows DCF made efforts — including attempts to put appointments into the mother’s phone and to arrange medical contacts — and that the mother’s inconsistent engagement undermined the prospect that additional accommodation would have led to safe reunification within a reasonable time.
Joseph Desmond, counsel for the child, argued the judge’s findings that the child requires intensive, specialized care and that the mother historically failed to provide or follow through with medical care weigh against reunification. Desmond noted evidence that the child bonded to the foster/adoptive caregiver and that the child’s best interests favor termination of parental rights.
The panel questioned counsel about the timing of referrals, the effect of prior case history with older children, whether the neuropsychological evaluation was admitted into evidence, and the scope of services the department provided. After the arguments, the court took the case under advisement.
