Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Weighs Challenge to DCF Custody Finding, With Focus on Housing and Parental Insight
Summary
In an impounded child‑welfare appeal, counsel for the father argued the juvenile court improperly found him unfit by lumping the father's fitness with the mother’s substance issues and citing housing instability; the child’s lawyer and DCF urged affirmance of the trial court’s detailed findings.
The Appeals Court heard argument in a care‑and‑protection appeal in which the father and the child seek remand for a new trial or reconsideration of a permanent‑custody finding. Attorney Gary O’Brien, speaking for the father, said the trial court improperly aggregated mother’s substance‑use issues and housing instability to find father unfit and that the record did not show sufficient nexus between mother’s problems and harm to the child.
Valerie Robin, representing the child, asked the court to vacate the decision and remand to the juvenile court to determine whether the child can be safely returned to the father under appropriate conditions; she emphasized the child’s school status (now fourth grade, age 10) and the appellate focus on the child's best interest.
William Cuddle, for the Department of Children and Families, told the panel the trial judge made hundreds of specific factual findings and reasonably concluded the parents had not made adequate improvements for safe reunification. The panel’s questioning probed whether the trial record supported separate, parent‑specific findings as required by binding cases and whether DCF’s reasonable‑efforts obligations were satisfied.
The panel did not announce a decision from the bench and took the arguments under advisement.
