Mother appeals DCF termination, arguing judge denied reasonable‑accommodation requests and drew adverse inference
Loading...
Summary
Appellant counsel argued the trial court refused a requested reasonable accommodation for a parent with mental‑health disabilities, excluded her after a courtroom outburst without warning and later used her inability to testify against her; DCF and child's counsel said the accommodation was limited and complied with and that removal and inferences were justified.
Laura Openshaw, representing a mother whose parental rights were terminated, told the Massachusetts Appeals Court that the trial court denied a reasonable‑accommodation motion filed months before trial and then excluded the mother after her disruptive behavior without following the procedural safeguards the court should have used for vulnerable parents.
"What happened next is a really big problem," Openshaw said, describing the sequence: a July filing and an oral renewal at trial seeking that the mother be allowed to finish her answers before objections were made; two incidents in the courtroom in which the mother left and later returned and then had an outburst during a social‑worker's testimony; and, she said, a subsequent denial of continuances and the drawing of adverse inferences at disposition.
Department of Children and Families counsel Carol Frizzoli responded that the requested accommodation was limited and was honored in practice — counsel agreed to let the mother finish answers and objections were held until after answers — and that the mother left voluntarily during a disruption and was not permitted to re‑enter in a fashion supported by the record. The child's counsel argued the mother's long history of unmanaged substance‑use, mental‑health instability and sporadic engagement in services supported the conclusion that termination served the child's best interest.
The panel extensively questioned both sides about the motion's sufficiency, the McDonough framework for reasonable accommodations, the record support for whether the mother was denied re‑entry, and whether the judge gave the mother adequate warnings before removal. Counsel on both sides cited case law and procedural rules governing accommodations for disability in courtroom settings and the balance between courtroom management and parental rights.
No decision was announced at argument; the court reserved judgment.
