Appeals court weighs permanency options after contested termination in DCF v. Mother

The Appeals Court considered whether the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights where the children had lived with their grandmother and a permanent guardianship remained available as an alternative to adoption.

Counsel for the mother argued the juvenile court failed to make specific findings explaining why termination and adoption were necessary when the grandmother was willing to provide a permanent guardianship and to keep the mother involved in the children's lives. The mother's lawyer urged that, where permanency can be achieved by guardianship without severing legal parental status, the juvenile court should make explicit findings comparing the alternatives.

The Department of Children and Families responded that the mother's unfitness was extensively documented over many years, the record showed repeated destabilizing conduct, and that termination plus adoption offered the greatest legal stability for the children. Attorneys for the children argued adoption avoids the repeated litigation and uncertainty that follows a guardianship (which can be reopened or vacated) and cited the children's expressed preference for adoption.

The panel questioned whether the juvenile court's findings (which the mother said were too terse on the choice between guardianship and adoption) satisfied the requirement that a court explain why termination is necessary as opposed to a less-drastic disposition. Advocates for the children emphasized that one child had already aged out of guardianship and that guardianship can leave younger children vulnerable to repeated petitions and contested proceedings; counsel also noted the children's stated wishes in favor of adoption.

Argument concluded and the matter was submitted for decision.