Nicole Paquin, representing the mother in the DCF appeal, urged the panel to vacate the termination decree and remand because the trial judge failed to make required, specific findings about whether the Department of Children and Families provided reasonable, tailored services that would address the parents’ deficits. Paquin said the social worker testified she did not contact the incarcerated mother and sent letters to prior addresses knowing the parents had moved, and that the judge did not consider evidence the mother completed some services.

Father’s counsel Nathan Bench argued the judge improperly shut down inquiry into guardianship as a permanency plan; Bench said guardianship would have been a workable alternative in a case involving older children and that the trial record lacks a reasoned consideration of guardianship because the judge did not allow development of such a plan.

Assistant general counsel Kristen Braithwaite for DCF said the record shows repeated disruptions in the parents’ care, a long period without visits (the last in‑person visit cited as January 2022 and a virtual visit in September 2022), and credible evidence that parents failed to engage. She also said the court credited the department’s evidence that it made reasonable efforts and pointed to transcript pages and foster‑care review reports where the court and reviewers found efforts appropriate.

The attorney for the children, Alessandra Donovan, told the panel that parents repeatedly declined to engage with DCF, that multiple social workers were involved, and that the children had been traumatized by conduct during visits; she argued termination was appropriate to provide stability. The panel took the appeal under submission after questioning both sides.