Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court weighs whether excluding DCF parenting evaluation prejudiced mother in termination appeal
Summary
In a contested child‑welfare appeal, counsel for the mother argued the trial judge erred by excluding a DCF‑commissioned parenting evaluation and that the exclusion, plus record gaps about services and shelter comments, prejudiced the mother's case; DCF and child counsel urged affirmation, citing hospitalizations, substance use, recurring violent relationships and bonding evidence for the children with grandparents.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in a termination-of-parental-rights appeal in which the main dispute concerned a DCF‑commissioned parenting evaluation and whether excluding that expert materially prejudiced the mother.
Mother's appellate counsel, Sheri Kraner, said the trial court "squandered" the opportunity to have an expert explain the mother's trauma history and provide tailored recommendations. Kraner told the panel that the judge excluded Dr. Maddox's August 2023 report and that, without an offer of proof or the report itself in the appendix, the court could not assess prejudice. "If I messed up, the appeals court will tell me," the trial judge had said at trial, Kraner quoted; she urged the Appeals Court to find harmful error and remand for a new trial.
DCF counsel Robert Fairburn said the judge properly exercised discretion and that the record nevertheless contained extensive findings supporting termination: repeated violent relationships, long-standing mental-health hospitalizations and substance‑use incidents, and failure to remedy parenting concerns over multiple years. Children's counsel asked the court to affirm, citing bonding testimony showing the children are placed with grandparents in a pre‑adoptive home and arguing removal would be damaging.
The justices pressed both sides on procedural and evidentiary points: whether counsel had made a formal offer of proof for the excluded expert, whether the report's content was preserved elsewhere in court investigation documents, and whether the trial judge's off‑hand comments about shelters (and a concern that "he wouldn't put kids in a shelter") appeared in findings or were merely an in‑trial remark. Counsel acknowledged that some references to the evaluation were summarized in other exhibits but said the full report and the expert's possible testimony were not made part of the record.
The court also discussed whether the mother had made reasonable efforts under her action plan; counsel argued she had engaged in therapy, signed releases to verify attendance, applied for benefits, and enrolled in domestic‑violence programming. DCF and children's counsel said the totality of trauma, substance‑use history and prior hospitalizations supported the trial judge's conclusion that the mother was not fit at the time of the hearing. The case is submitted.
