Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to termination, adoption plan for nonverbal child in DCF case
Summary
Attorneys for a mother and for the child disputed whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating parental rights and approving an adoption-by-recruitment plan for a nonverbal child with extensive needs; DCF urged affirmance, saying the trial court's findings and plan were reasonable.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments in an appeal of a Department of Children and Families case in which a juvenile court terminated a mother's parental rights and approved an adoption-by-recruitment plan for a nonverbal child with significant care needs.
Mother's attorney Michelle Mousherit asked the panel to reverse termination as an abuse of discretion because, she said, the department's adoption plan effectively rendered the child a "legal orphan" with little realistic prospect of adoption. Mousherit argued that the trial court relied on optimistic recruitment prospects despite social-worker testimony that identifying adoptive parents for a child with the child's disabilities would be extremely difficult.
Attorney Susan Taylor, representing the child, told the court the evidence supported the judge's conclusion that termination best served the child's needs and noted the mother's continuing weekly visits and engagement with services. Taylor and Mousherit both suggested alternatives such as permanent custody or a conditional plan that would preserve some parental rights if adoption never occurred.
Julie Gallup, appearing for DCF, asked the court to affirm. Gallup told the panel the juvenile court had made credibility findings and specific written findings about the department's ability to continue recruitment and the need to provide permanence for the child. Gallup said the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over implementation and permanency review and that the child's placement options and need for a family justified termination.
The justices questioned whether the trial court had adequate evidence to weigh the low likelihood of adoption against the benefit of terminating parental rights, asked whether termination could be coupled with a mechanism to restore parental rights if adoption failed, and explored whether the mother remained entitled to participate in the child's therapeutic team. The court took the matter under advisement after argument.
