Appeals panel hears dispute over competency process, guardian ad litem and counsel withdrawal in DCF termination case

A three-judge panel of the appeals court heard argument in Department of Children and Families v. Mother regarding whether procedural errors at the trial level — chiefly the appointment and role of a guardian ad litem and the withdrawal of the mother's counsel — require vacatur and remand of a termination-of-parental-rights judgment.

Cara Shayet, representing the mother, told the panel she would press three issues on appeal: the court’s competency process, alleged constructive denial of counsel, and events on the day of trial. "There's no competency evaluation. There's no hearing. No judge uttered those magic words," Shayet said, arguing the record shows the mother was nonetheless treated as if incompetent through the appointment of a GAL and related courtroom steps.

Shayet urged that the trial court’s handling deprived the mother of procedural protections and that a proper remand should direct a competency evaluation by court clinicians to inform an adversary hearing. She also contended the mother lacked continuous counsel for much of the case and that those gaps undermined preservation of key issues on appeal.

Department counsel disputed that the trial judge abused discretion. In opening, a DCF attorney told the court that the trial judge "was in the best position to make the decisions that were before her, and she did not abuse her discretion." DCF emphasized gaps in the record and argued the mother had been noncommunicative at times and had not participated in multiple hearings, facts the department said support the trial court’s handling.

The panel extensively questioned both sides about the form and function of the GAL appointment. Judges and counsel examined a June 28, 2023 order and noted that the printed form had multiple boxes (including one marked "diminished capacity") checked at different times in the case. Several justices pressed whether the person actually appointed acted as a substituted-judgment GAL, a court evaluator, or a legal adviser and whether the appointed GAL had the mental-health qualifications the guidelines contemplate. A panel member observed that appointing a GAL that is a lawyer — rather than a mental-health professional — raises concerns if the form and guidelines intended a different role.

The judges also explored practical remedies. Shayet proposed a clinician evaluation to inform a competency hearing; some justices asked whether the judge on remand should appoint successor counsel and instruct that lawyer to consult the GAL about accommodations. DCF counsel responded that the trial judge’s choices fit the record the judge had and that remand would delay permanency for the child.

Lane Goldberg, who represented the child, framed the question around stability: "the best interest of the child should" guide decisions about whether a remand is warranted, he said, arguing that sending the case back could prolong uncertainty for a child placed with the maternal grandmother. Counsel reported the child was in a preadoptive placement with the maternal grandmother and that the youngest child was about two and a half years old at argument (about one and a half at trial).

Throughout argument the panel cited and tested comparisons to prior appeals briefs and cases identified in the record; counsel referenced unpublished decisions and state guidelines concerning appointment of GALs and court practice. The panel repeatedly noted gaps in the appendix record and asked whether key facts — for example, whether the mother was mistakenly told to attend a different courthouse the day before trial and whether she was hospitalized for roughly three months — had been preserved or adequately reflected before the trial judge.

The court took no ruling at argument. After closing remarks the panel marked the case submitted for decision and recessed. No decision was announced at argument; a written opinion will follow the court’s consideration.