Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Father appeals termination of parental rights, faults trial counsel’s investigation and evidence presentation
Summary
In a termination-of-parental-rights appeal, successor counsel argued trial counsel failed to present witnesses and records (disclosed months earlier) that would show benefit from services and rebut findings of ongoing domestic violence; the court pressed whether the trial judge had credited the evidence and whether the father’s ongoing contact with the child’s mother undermined his claim.
Attorney Megan De, standing in as successor appellate counsel, asked the Appeals Court to vacate a decree terminating a father’s parental rights for lack of due process tied to ineffective-assistance claims. De said the father had provided potential witnesses and documents seven months before trial that trial counsel did not investigate or present; she argued that additional evidence would have shown the father engaged in and benefitted from treatment, undermining the judge’s finding of current unfitness.
The panel pressed for specifics. Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justice Wood asked whether the motion judge had actually considered the materials and whether the judge’s extensive findings memorialized the judge’s awareness. The panel also focused on the father’s continuing contact with the child’s mother, his inconsistent testimony about past incidents, and whether those contacts reasonably supported the judge’s conclusion that returning custody would recreate an unsafe environment. DCF counsel (Kristen Braithweight) responded that the record contained corroborated incidents of physical domestic violence and evidence the father minimized or denied those events at trial; the department cited the child’s medical and developmental concerns as part of the baseline fact pattern.
Why it matters: Appeals of parental-termination orders require courts to weigh procedural claims about counsel performance against the trial court’s factfinding about present unfitness. The case implicates what evidence is necessary to show a parent has 'benefitted' from services and how delay in engaging them affects the unfitness determination.
Next steps: The panel took the appeal under advisement.
