An appellate panel heard arguments in an impounded permanency appeal over whether a juvenile court erred by awarding permanent custody to a father and allowing relocation to Brazil.

Deborah Dau, representing the mother, told the court the trial judge failed to independently assess the child’s best interests before endorsing the move and overlooked risks tied to the father’s deportation status, absence of a detailed international home study showing family members' identities, and a lack of follow-up oversight. "Mother was afraid of her child being sent to Brazil...The judge in this case failed to address the underlying risk to the child," Dau said.

Counsel for the Department of Children and Families, Carol Frizzoli, said a completed international home study supported awarding custody to the father and noted the child withdrew his objection and was relocated with a visitation plan for maternal family members. Frizzoli argued mother was not an aggrieved party for the purposes of this appeal and identified procedural routes (probate review, review and redetermination) for any further challenge.

Appellate counsel for the father and counsel for the child urged the panel to affirm, citing evidence of father’s participation in counseling, the home study, and the child's present adjustment. The justices questioned whether the juvenile court should have retained active oversight—particularly given uncertainties about the father’s household, missing identifying details in the record, the potential staleness of prior domestic-violence allegations, and whether mother had standing to pursue some appellate claims.

The matter was submitted after argument.