Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mother seeks reversal of termination order; appeals court hears disputes over sobriety, bonding and permanency
Summary
In a termination appeal, counsel for mother argued the trial court improperly discredited evidence of sobriety and bonding and gave disproportionate weight to the children’s preferences; the Department countered that chronic unfitness and long foster placements made termination proper.
Nathan Bench, representing the mother in a contested termination appeal, told the appeals panel that the trial court abused its discretion by discrediting evidence of the mother’s sustained sobriety, overweighting the children’s stated preferences and failing to credit the mother’s removal from an abusive relationship.
Bench said the mother had substantial sobriety (he described roughly 19 months of negative drug screens at one point in the record), had entered a domestic violence shelter after a 2022 incident, and showed insight and steps toward safety. He argued the judge’s findings that there was “no evidence of a bond” with the younger child were inconsistent with testimony and visit notes showing the child ran to and hugged her mother at visits.
The Department of Children and Families, represented by Carol Frizzoli, contended the mother remained unfit: the record showed years of inconsistent contact, housing instability, repeated domestic‑violence incidents, missed visits and other factors that continued to place the children at risk. Frizzoli noted extended periods with zero contact between the mother and the son (October 2019 to May 2022) and argued the trial judge reasonably concluded permanency for the children required termination.
Attorneys for the minor children supported the judge’s ruling. Sharon Sullivan Puccini (guardian ad litem for the younger child) and Beth Nussbaum (for the male child) emphasized the children’s established placements, the length of time in foster care (more than four years), and the foster parents’ commitment; counsel described the son’s strong bond with his foster family and concerns about returning him to a mother who had not demonstrated consistent parenting or a clear reunification plan.
Arguing justices questioned how much additional time would be reasonable to allow the mother to attempt reunification and pressed parties on the evidentiary bases for the judge’s findings about sobriety, visitation length and the weight given to children’s stated preferences. The panel took the case under advisement.
