Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs whether evidence supported finding of parental unfitness and whether DCF's remedial failures required different relief
Summary
The appeals court considered whether a juvenile court properly found both parents 'presently unfit' and whether a failure by DCF to provide reasonable reunification efforts required different or additional remedial relief.
The panel heard argument in an impounded appeal captioned Department of Children and Families v. Father (parties impounded on record), concerning whether the juvenile court's September finding that both parents were presently unfit was supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the court abused its discretion in declining to order specific remedial measures after finding DCF had not made reasonable reunification efforts.
Mother's counsel Michael Penta asked the appeals court to vacate the unfitness finding and the award of permanent custody or, at minimum, to require the juvenile court to fashion remedial orders and a reunification plan before permanent custody was resolved. Penta said certain documents the juvenile court relied on post‑trial (a December status report) were not admitted at trial and had not been subject to cross‑examination.
Father's counsel Colleen Duran and child counsel Kristen McKenna emphasized that the underlying removal stemmed from a supervision concern (a five‑year‑old left alone) and that the child experienced multiple placements (counsel cited about 13 placements) that contributed to emotional dysregulation; McKenna urged the court to prioritize a path for safe reunification where possible.
Assistant Attorney General Arjun Jay Kumar defended the juvenile court's conclusion that the parents were presently unfit at trial, citing missed medical appointments, failures to engage in services and the child's ongoing therapeutic needs. He also noted the juvenile court separately found DCF had not made sufficient efforts in certain respects and had ordered follow‑up status hearings and step‑down planning for the child's placement.
The justices explored whether, if the September order relied in part on post‑trial materials (a December report), the remedy should be vacatur and remand for clearer findings or whether subsidiary findings could be excised. Counsel debated whether vacating the order would moot the pending review and redetermination scheduled in juvenile court and how the two proceedings should interact.
The court thanked counsel and submitted the case for decision after extended argument. No opinion was issued from the bench.
