Father urges reversal of guardianship, department asks court to affirm amid disputed records

Christopher Petroni, attorney for the father, asked the appellate court to reverse a guardianship order, arguing the Department of Children, Youth and Families failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the father was unlikely to remedy conditions precluding reunification in the near future. "This court should reverse the guardianship order because the department did not meet as a burden to prove a condition precluding reunification that my client was unlikely to remedy in the near future," Petroni told the panel.

Petroni said the admitted record contained evidence the father had an opioid-addiction history and that he enrolled in Evergreen Recovery Services in July 2024, but he argued the only admissible evidence of subsequent treatment engagement was limited and did not establish that the father could not make future progress. He also disputed the trial court's drawing of an adverse inference from the father's failure to sign certain release forms, saying the proper remedy would have been for the department to obtain a court-ordered release, which the clerk's papers indicate could be done "per Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations." Petroni said there is no evidence the department ever attempted to use such an order.

Brian Holland, counsel for the Department of Children, Youth and Families, urged the court to affirm the guardianship. "Number 1, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that there is a little likelihood that DG could correct his parental deficiencies within the near future such that MMG could be returned home," Holland said. He pointed to the father's brief inpatient stay in July 2024, a subsequent six-month period in which he was not engaged with services, and later partial engagement at Digwallak Wellness Center with reported noncompliance in meetings. Holland also emphasized parenting concerns, saying visit frequency fell in 2024 and the child, MMG, at times refused visits, which the department says supports the trial court's finding that the bond had weakened.

Holland further described repeated domestic-violence referrals beginning in 2022 and argued the father did not timely challenge the disposition order that required domestic-violence evaluation, limiting his ability to attack that order years later. He noted the case history: the child was 3 at earlier proceedings and is now 8, and the child has lived with the guardian for about four years.

The judges pressed both sides on evidentiary gaps, asking who bore responsibility for producing usable medical-release forms and whether the department took steps to compel records. One judge noted the record lacks documentation showing compliance with ordered services and asked how the juvenile court should proceed when records are missing. Petroni reiterated that the department bore the burden of proof and the means to obtain records and that the absence of competent evidence should support reversal.

Petroni also argued the record lacks competent evidence that the father was the perpetrator of any domestic violence and noted the department did not offer the underlying petition as an exhibit at trial. He concluded by restating his request that the court reverse the guardianship order.

The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing. The argument concluded after the judges' questions and counsel's remarks, and the court thanked counsel for their presentations.