Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights in DCF case

The panel heard a lengthy and fact-intensive appeal involving the Department of Children and Families’ petition to terminate parental rights. Mark DeJoy, representing the mother, emphasized her history of trauma, her youth at the time of trial and recent engagement with services, arguing the trial judge’s finding of "indefinite" unfitness lacked concrete explanations tied to current functioning.

"Mother was sexually assaulted at 12 and at 13," DeJoy told the court, describing how the mother's history complicates assessment of present capacity and urging the court not to leap from past trauma to an indefinite conclusion about future parental ability.

Assistant Attorney General Claire Speck contended the trial court made extensive findings of fact and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the mother was unfit indefinitely and that termination served the child's best interests. She stressed the child's "profound special needs," including severe autism and a need for consistent supports the court found the mother could not provide reliably.

Child counsel Shana Collier echoed that the child's progress in a pre-adoptive placement, the child's medical and behavioral needs, and the judge’s 199 findings supported the termination decision. The panel examined the record on how services were provided, whether the mother’s improvement was durable, the trial court’s deference to expert reports, and whether reliance on a maternal grandmother’s home created unacceptable risk for the child.

The court did not rule from the bench; the matter will be decided in a written opinion.