Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court hears challenge to termination-of-parental-rights decree in DCF case
Summary
The Appeals Court heard a challenge to a trial judge's termination of a mother's parental rights. The mother’s lawyer said the court failed to consider less‑restrictive alternatives and did not make required best‑interest findings; DCF and the child's lawyer said the record showed volatility, failure to engage, and the child's special needs warranted termination.
The Appeals Court heard argument in an appeal by a mother whose parental rights were terminated after a prolonged period in foster care.
Tamika O’Brien, representing the mother, told the panel the case was not about whether the child was currently safe but whether the trial court had the statutory obligation to consider less‑restrictive options before ordering termination. O’Brien said the judge adopted earlier findings and did not explain why guardianship or permanent custody would not provide permanence without severing parental rights.
Department of Children and Families counsel Kristen Braithweight answered that the judge’s findings — that the mother remained volatile, declined services, and had not successfully remediated parenting shortcomings — supported termination to achieve stability for the child. The child’s lawyer, Steve Rosenthal, emphasized the child’s medical and trauma‑therapy needs and testified to the grandmother’s caregiving that had produced medical and developmental improvements while the mother had not engaged with services.
Panel questions focused on whether the trial court had sufficiently explained the best‑interest analysis and whether the judge’s critical statements reflected bias or a reasoned assessment of a lengthy record. Counsel for the mother asked for a remand for more specific findings; DCF and the child's lawyer urged affirmation. The court took the appeal under advisement.
