The Appeals Court considered an appeal of a termination-of-parental-rights judgment in which the father contended the trial court erred by misconstruing an expert report, overemphasizing his transportation of the child's mother to supervised visits, and failing to account for the father's subsequent progress in services.

Appellant counsel said the expert expressly limited conclusions and that the trial judge unfairly converted descriptive findings (such as an "avoidant coping mechanism") into predictive determinations of indefinite unfitness. Counsel urged the court to consider alternatives to requiring the father to relocate to Massachusetts, noting the father is a New York homeowner and argued the court and department could use supervision or ICPC processes rather than termination.

Department counsel and the child's counsel told the panel the record shows the father was evasive, failed to sustain therapeutic engagement, and continued patterns of contact that placed the child at risk. The child's counsel emphasized the child's nearly five years in substitute care and the foster family's status as a committed pre-adoptive resource, saying stability favored affirming the termination for the child's best interest.

The panel pressed counsel on whether disputed credibility or a judge's fact findings warranted reversal; after argument the case was submitted.