The appeals panel heard argument in an impounded termination‑of‑parental‑rights appeal brought by a mother challenging findings that led the trial court to terminate parental rights.

Appellant counsel Lucas Newbill argued the trial court overlooked evidence of the mother's sustained progress in substance‑use treatment, her engagement with mental‑health providers and social services, and that the court improperly discounted a report (Exhibit cited) from a former DCF supervisor and licensed substance‑use counselor who documented the mother’s treatment engagement. Newbill urged reversal on the ground that the judge’s factual findings were inconsistent with the record and that the termination was therefore unsupported.

Kate Lambertino, arguing for the Department of Children and Families, defended the trial court’s exercise of discretion. She said the judge weighed the mother’s recent improvements but reasonably concluded those changes did not show the durable parental fitness necessary to return the children given the history of domestic violence, inconsistent accountability and positive substance screens. Counsel for the children urged affirmance and supported leaving post‑adoption visitation to the pre‑adoptive parents' discretion, citing balancing tests in adoption jurisprudence.

Panel questioning focused on the weight to give to varied records (medical screenings, treatment notes, visitation histories), the timing of improvements, and the judge’s credibility findings. The matter was submitted after argument.