Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Termination Of Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals panel hears whether a 12‑year‑old’s stated preference can decide termination of parental rights
Summary
On appeal in Department of Children and Families v. Father, counsel sparred over whether a 12‑year‑old’s expressed wish to cut ties with her father may be given dispositive weight in a termination‑of‑parental‑rights ruling; DCF urged the panel to uphold termination based on the father’s history of violence and the child’s safety concerns.
An appellate panel heard oral argument in Department of Children and Families v. Father over whether a trial court improperly relied on a 12‑year‑old child’s statements in terminating a father’s parental rights.
Attorney Laura Lo, representing the appellant father, told the court she would focus on whether a judge should defer to a 12‑year‑old’s expressed preference in a termination proceeding. Lo said the trial court “introduced its findings with this statement that the child in the case currently hates and fears her father and wants nothing to do with him,” and argued that placing that language at the start of the findings signaled that the child’s preference had been given determinative weight rather than being one factor among many.
Lo urged the panel to treat the child’s preference as an evidentiary consideration but not the dispositive basis for terminating parental rights. She told the court the in‑camera colloquy with the child did not clearly establish that the child understood termination as a permanent, irreversible legal act and argued the record did not contain specific findings explaining why termination, rather than a supported guardianship, was shown to be in the child’s best interest.
Jeremy Bis, counsel for the Department of Children and Families, responded that the child’s statements were part of a broader record documenting violence and risk. Bis described incidents in which the child reported waking to find the father standing over the household, stones or bricks were thrown at the home, and the father assaulted the child’s mother; he said the child told investigators she “hated” the father and that she felt safe with her foster parent. Bis argued those facts, together with the father’s repeated criminal conduct and limited engagement when incarcerated, supported the judge’s decision to terminate rights.
The justices questioned both sides about evidentiary details. They discussed whether statements appearing in a 51B report were admissible as the child’s own statements or whether they were hearsay introduced through a third‑party interviewer, and whether references to a 51A could be treated as background. Counsel debated the scope of admissible evidence on review for abuse of discretion and how the trial court’s findings were framed.
Counsel also addressed visitation and DCF practices with incarcerated parents. Bis said mechanisms exist for calls or virtual visits, but he told the court the record showed the father stopped making calls during periods when communication had briefly occurred and later failed to respond to outreach, which the department said undercut the father’s argument that he had sought to maintain contact while incarcerated.
In closing argument Attorney Shier (transcript identifies her as "Attorney Shier") urged the court to uphold the termination, saying a finding of unfitness gives the trial judge broad discretion and arguing the record shows the father’s conduct posed ongoing risk. In argument she described the father’s behavior in stark terms, calling him “a family annihilator.”
The panel took the matter under advisement. No ruling was announced at the hearing.
