Father appeals termination of parental rights, pressing ineffective‑assistance claim and CPCS standards

Roberta Driscollweiss, appellate counsel for the father whose parental rights were terminated, asked the panel to vacate the termination order or remand for further proceedings, arguing the father was denied effective assistance of counsel. She asked the court to apply the Commonwealth’s CPCS (Committee for Public Counsel Services) performance standards as the baseline for representation in child‑welfare matters and described defense counsel’s conduct as falling short of the standards: counsel, Driscollweiss said, was appointed months before trial but did not request the DCF file until six days before trial, did not communicate with the father until two weeks before trial, and failed to pursue motions or a visitation strategy the father had repeatedly requested.

Driscollweiss said child‑welfare representation differs from criminal practice because the proceedings and the opportunities for remediation are ongoing; she argued counsel’s failures to pursue visitation, discovery and evidentiary pretrial work prejudiced the father’s ability to present mitigation and establish fitness. She asked the court to find prejudice or at least remand for an evidentiary hearing so the factual record about counsel’s decisions could be developed.

Department counsel Matthew Price replied that the trial record contained “overwhelming evidence” of unfitness: a history of domestic violence, inconsistent engagement with services, the father’s long non‑parenting history, and a parenting plan that the court deemed inadequate. Price said the single‑justice denial of the father’s motion to return to the lower court was not an abuse of discretion and that the father had not shown a sufficiently strong likelihood of success to warrant a remand.

Child’s counsel argued that even if counsel’s performance could be second‑guessed, the record showed the father lacked the sustained engagement and parenting capacities necessary to avoid termination. The panel raised questions about the procedural posture (whether the single‑justice should have allowed a return to the trial court) and about what specific additional relief counsel sought; the court took the matter under advisement.

Provenance: Appellant’s ineffective‑assistance arguments and requests to apply CPCS standards appear in arguments and record references (topic intro: block_16; topic finish: block_18).