In Department of Children and Families v. Mother the appeals panel heard argument over whether the termination of parental rights rested on unreliable or false evidence and whether that error requires reversal.

Appellate counsel Lucas Newbill told the justices the department submitted a court update report to the probate court that stated the mother tested positive for fentanyl when, according to supporting laboratory subtesting in the same record, only norfentanyl (a metabolite) was detected. Newbill said the department did not present expert testimony to explain the significance of a norfentanyl finding in a non‑postpartum person and that without expert context the trial judge’s reliance on the report was erroneous and could have materially affected credibility findings about the mother’s sobriety date.

DCF counsel Lynn Murphy and the child’s counsel, Daniel Katz, responded that the record contains extensive evidence beyond the disputed report: long‑standing substance abuse, failure to complete treatment and recurring neglect, a newborn who required prolonged hospitalization for neonatal withdrawal, observations of intoxication during supervised visits, missed appointments, cluttered and unsafe housing and the child’s ongoing developmental needs. They argued that even setting aside the disputed toxicology notation, the totality of the evidence supported the termination.

The panel questioned the parties about the absence of an expert to interpret the toxicology notation, the probative value of norfentanyl versus fentanyl findings, and whether reversal is warranted if the disputed data materially affected the judge’s assessment of the mother’s sobriety and remediation efforts. Counsel referenced case law about reliance on unreliable evidence and whether errors were harmless in light of a broader record.

Argument concluded and the case was submitted.