Appeals court reviews termination of parental rights where child has complex attachment needs

Sherry Krasner, counsel for the mother whose parental rights were terminated, told the appeals panel that the trial court’s written findings were insufficiently detailed to support the judge’s conclusion that returning the subject child would be harmful. Krasner said the judge made relatively few discrete findings given an extensive trial record, and she criticized the absence of specific factual findings about the mother’s mental‑health diagnoses, service participation, work and education history, and the precise reasons the judge concluded the mother could manage two of her children but not the third.

The Department’s appellate lawyer Jeremy Bayless and counsel for the child argued the record supported termination. They emphasized that the child has a diagnosed attachment disorder and separation anxiety: testimony and the court’s findings described repeated nighttime and sleep‑onset needs (a lengthy, structured routine, require multiple adults at times) and the foster parents’ role in producing stability. Bayless told the court that experts and providers credited the foster family with helping the child reduce sleep‑onset time from hours to a more manageable period but that removing the child to a less‑structured home would risk regression.

Child’s counsel William Como added that the mother’s inconsistent engagement with services, missed drug‑screen appointments and some denials in testimony undermined her ability to meet the child’s high needs. The panel questioned counsel about differences among the three children and whether the judge adequately tied findings to the legal standard for termination; after argument the panel took the case under advisement.

Provenance: Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of factual findings and the Department’s emphasis on attachment disorder appear in the record (topic intro: block_19; topic finish: block_21).