Appeals court hears challenge to termination of father's parental rights; DCF and children's counsel support affirmance
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Father appealed a termination‑of‑parental‑rights decree, arguing termination was unnecessary given a reunification plan and that the judge overly relied on his litigiousness; the Department and children's counsel urged affirmance, pointing to long‑standing findings of domestic violence, mental‑health issues and the children's fear. The court took the matter under advisement.
The appeals panel heard argument in Department of Children and Families v. Father, a challenge to a juvenile court decree terminating a father's parental rights.
Appellant counsel Michael Penta argued the termination was an extreme and unnecessary step because the permanency plan focused on reunification with the mother (who had probate orders awarding custody) and because less‑restrictive measures were available to address the father’s litigious conduct. Penta said the trial judge lacked specific findings required to justify terminating parental rights and emphasized procedural gaps in the record from prior probate proceedings.
Matthew Price, representing the Department of Children and Families, urged affirmance. Price said the record included “1,256 findings that went unchallenged,” and he described evidence that the father had a history of domestic violence, stalking, untreated mental‑health needs, and limited participation in services; he told the panel those findings supported termination under the abuse‑of‑discretion standard.
Linda Medeiros, counsel for the children, described the children’s prolonged disruption — the two girls are now 15 and 13 and had not had unsupervised time with their father since 2016 — and recounted episodes in which the father became agitated during proceedings and created fear for the children, including the foster mother obtaining a two‑year restraining order. Medeiros argued termination sought to free the children from a decade of instability.
The justices questioned whether the father had a burden to present transcripts and prior findings to the trial judge on reconsideration and whether Judge King’s reliance on the father’s litigiousness was a permissible basis for termination in context. The panel thanked advocates and took the matter under advisement.