Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to parental‑rights termination after debate over DCF's accommodations and reasonable efforts
Summary
Mother’s lawyer said the Department of Children and Families failed to provide disability‑tailored supports before seeking termination; DCF said it provided visits, housing assistance and disability consults and that the mother’s inconsistent engagement supported termination. Child counsel urged affirmance for permanency.
The Appeals Court heard argument in Department of Children and Families and another v. Mother (2025P272), a termination‑of‑parental‑rights appeal that centered on whether DCF made reasonable efforts and reasonable accommodations for a mother with cognitive and other challenges.
Mother’s counsel Lois Farmer told the panel the mother engaged early during pregnancy, addressed substance‑use issues and sought housing, but the agency failed to implement disability‑sensitive supports recommended by a neuropsychological evaluation and did not postpone trial to give those services time to work. ‘‘This is a termination of parental rights following a finding of unfitness of the mother,’’ Farmer said, urging the court to evaluate whether additional accommodations and a longer period for tailored supports might have changed the outcome.
Counsel for the Department, Robert Fairband, replied that the agency provided significant services: hospital access and overnight visitation, multi‑hour staged visits, housing assistance and caseworker support that included calling providers and arranging transportation; DCF also convened internal disability consultations and documented repeated attempts to secure evaluations and placements. He said the record shows a long history of housing instability, substance‑use disorder, and limited visitation that supported the trial court’s decision.
Child counsel Carrie Bagnal urged the court to affirm, saying the child (about 3½ years old at argument) had never formed a bond with the mother and was ‘‘thriving’’ with caretakers; Bagnal emphasized the child’s medical and developmental history and said that late engagement by the mother came too close to trial to provide permanency.
The panel asked detailed questions about the timing of DCF’s disability consults, what accommodations the agency provided, and whether a continuance for implementation would have been feasible. The court reserved decision.
