Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court hears argument in DCF permanency dispute; lawyers debate adoption goal for teen
Summary
Counsel for parents and the Department of Children and Families disputed whether the probate court properly found the parents unfit and whether an adoption goal was appropriate for a teenager who had been in foster care; the child’s attorney said the youth would veto adoption. Court will decide later.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded child-welfare appeal in which counsel for the parents challenged findings that the parents were unfit and questioned the department's decision to retain adoption as the permanency goal.
"This court should be somewhat troubled by what's frequently a pattern in the lower court's findings," David Cohen, representing the mother, told the panel. Cohen said the trial judge "stretched" evidence to support findings such as the home being uninhabitable and parental interference with schooling.
The father's attorney, Vetelina Ger Wilson, urged the court to consider recent remediation and the father's progress, arguing the home had been made habitable and criticizing the adoption goal given the father's expressed willingness to work with services. "There is no evidence to suggest that a wheelchair‑bound parent cannot take care of a 14‑year‑old teenager," she said, pressing the court to give weight to the father's improvements and to the trial judge's directive to begin supervised visits with the parent-aid present.
Mark Papiio, who represents the child, told the panel the youth "would absolutely veto any adoption" and argued the trial court properly considered that view when deciding not to terminate parental rights immediately. The record showed the child was 14 at trial and counsel said the youth is now 16 and thriving in placement.
Lyn Murphy, for the Department of Children and Families, defended the trial court's findings and described the agency's use of concurrent planning—pursuing reunification while preparing for adoption—after the parents repeatedly rejected services over several years. Murphy told the panel that the adoption goal reflected years of unsuccessful reunification efforts but did not mean DCF had stopped offering services.
The panel questioned counsel about the role of permanency hearings (which counsel said occur every six months), whether the adoption goal would foreclose concurrent planning, and the standards for overturning permanency decisions. No decision was issued from the bench; the court will consider the briefs and record before ruling.
What to watch: the appeals court's decision will clarify how much weight appellate judges give to remedial improvements, the parent's progress near trial, and a child's stated wishes when reviewing permanency and unfitness determinations.
