Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel hears dispute over competency process, guardian ad litem and counsel withdrawal in DCF termination case
Summary
At oral argument in Department of Children and Families v. Mother, the mother's attorney urged remand because the record lacks a formal competency hearing and the appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) was not a mental-health evaluator; DCF and the child's counsel said the trial judge did not abuse discretion and the child's need for stability weighs against delay.
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…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
