Father's attorney urges appellate guidance after trial court 'lumped' siblings in shelter-care findings; state and tribe defend removals

The father's attorney told the appellate court that the juvenile court erred by treating multiple children as a single unit when ordering shelter care, arguing that each parent–child relationship must be assessed separately.

"Children with diverse and individualized needs cannot be treated as a unit where parental rights are at stake," said Jennifer Dobson, who represents the father. She said the record lumped evidence for different children and did not show the court had evaluated the statutory shelter-care factors for each child individually.

The argument centered on whether the court's findings satisfied statutory requirements and whether later developments — including positive substance tests for both parents — make review moot. The judge pressed counsel on the timing and significance of the parents' positive fentanyl tests, asking whether those tests occurred before or after the children's removal and how that timing should affect appellate review.

Kristen Bellori, arguing for the Department of Children, Youth and Families, urged the court to deny review. She said that when Indian children are involved the Indian Child Welfare Act's "active efforts" standard applies and is a higher bar than ordinary "reasonable efforts." "Active efforts... that's the gold standard," Bellori said, adding that the juvenile court found clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of imminent physical harm and neglect across the siblings.

Bellori summarized facts in the record that, she said, supported removal: severe dental decay in a toddler requiring multiple teeth removed; prolonged failure to secure medical care for a child with suspected gastric obstruction until a physician summoned paramedics; and subsequent positive oral-swab tests showing fentanyl for both parents and methamphetamine for the mother.

A representative for the tribe defended the removals and described prior collaborative efforts with state social workers. The representative said social workers and tribal workers attempted active efforts in December and January, and that the record showed the parents sometimes refused entry to social workers and emergency responders. The tribal representative told the court that the family's situation involved acute safety concerns, including testimony that some children had been locked in rooms and denied food or water.

Dobson responded in rebuttal that the statute requires courts to "look at specific parent–child relationships" and urged the court to provide guidance on how trial courts should handle multi-child cases involving special needs. She argued that the record before the court did not unpack the court's reasoning for each child and that failing to do so hampers appellate review and risks unjust removals.

The presiding judge thanked the tribe for participating in briefing and oral argument and noted that two children's counsel waived argument but appeared. The court adjourned the hearing and scheduled a continued hearing date of July 22, 2026, asking parties to provide a status update if the dependency status changes before that date.

The court did not issue a ruling from the bench at the hearing.