Appeals court hears challenge to termination of mother’s parental rights in DCF case

An appellate panel heard oral argument in the Department of Children and Families’ appeal of the termination of a mother’s parental rights to two younger children, with attorneys debating whether the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and whether the judge over-relied on the teenager’s testimony in finding the mother unfit.

The mother’s attorney, Robert Young, told the court that “Mother is asking this court to vacate the termination decrees as to her 2 youngest children because of the, clearly erroneous factual conclusions which arose because of a lack of close attention to the evidence, and a reliance on the teenage daughter's story and circumstances.” Young argued the judge mischaracterized the mother’s engagement with services and overstated her unwillingness or inability to benefit from therapy and other interventions.

Young said the record shows the mother sought medical care for the teenager, inquired about family therapy and engaged in her own therapeutic services, but faced barriers including long wait lists and what he characterized as limited departmental support during a short reunification. He pointed to trial testimony timelines — including a Department social worker’s October 2022 testimony and the mother’s January 2023 testimony — to argue that the mother had begun family therapy after the teenager’s brief reunification and that the younger children had not had comparable recent contact with the mother to justify the same conclusions.

Assistant Attorney General Marina Polarecz, representing the Department of Children and Families, urged the court to affirm the trial judge’s decision, saying the judgment terminating parental rights was “supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Polarecz told the panel the court’s lengthy conclusions of law were not improper and that the most recent evidence available to the trial court — the teenager’s reunification and subsequent behavior while with the mother — was a proper part of the court’s assessment of current fitness. She also highlighted the trial record cited by the judge concerning substance abuse history, mental health concerns, housing instability and repeated failure to benefit from services.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler, lawyer for the two minor children, framed the dispute around competence. “There’s not abuse in most of these cases,” Butler said, “And the thing about this mother is it’s clear that she loved her children. It’s equally clear that she was not competent to care for them.” Butler described the children’s traumatic histories and cited evidence the panel had in the record — including dental neglect and prior placement disruptions — to support the trial court’s finding that the mother remained unable to meet the children’s needs.

Throughout argument the panel questioned counsel about whether parenting a teenager provides a proper basis for finding current unfitness as to younger children and about the procedural form of the trial court’s findings. The justices noted the appellate standard requires review for clear error and explored whether the trial judge improperly conflated factual findings and conclusions of law.

The panel heard factual points in the record cited by the parties: the younger children were about 10 and 6 at the time of trial and had not been in the mother’s care since March 2019; the teenager was nearly 18 at trial and had experienced multiple prior removals and a short reunification with the mother in early 2022; the DCF social worker testified in October 2022 about referrals for family therapy; the mother testified in January 2023 that some therapy had begun. Counsel disagreed over whether those facts, read together, supported the trial court’s termination order.

The appeals court took the case under advisement and did not announce a decision from the bench.

The case will return to the panel when the court issues its written opinion.