Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Termination of Parental Rights; Panel Probes Evidence and Counsel Performance
Summary
Appellate counsel for a mother argued the clear‑and‑convincing standard was unmet and raised ineffective‑assistance claims visible on the record; the Department of Children and Families and counsel for the children urged affirmance, citing pervasive evidence of parental unfitness and lack of progress.
The panel heard a difficult child‑welfare appeal in which counsel for the mother asked the court to reverse a superior‑court judgment terminating parental rights. Charles Levin argued the lower court overlooked positive foster‑care reviews and that the clear‑and‑convincing threshold for permanent termination was not shown.
Levin also pressed an ineffective‑assistance claim grounded in trial counsel’s broad, non‑specific motions in limine; he asked the panel to resolve the claim on direct appeal where the record shows possible prejudice. The panel questioned whether an explanation from trial counsel would be required to determine reasonableness of that strategy.
Department counsel Julie Gallup and children’s counsel Susan Taylor defended the judgment, saying testimony, foster‑care reviews, and the mother's courtroom demeanor supported the judge’s findings that unfitness was likely to continue and termination served the children’s best interests. The panel submitted the matter for decision.
