[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6086277,"mediaKeyId","2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022","parentId",2898133,"title","Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights; defense raises race and ineffective-assistance claims","audioSeconds",1845,"startMs",3430000,"endMs",5275000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022&start=3430&end=5275","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022/thumbnail_3430000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6086277/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-termination-of-parental-rights-defense-raises-race-and-ineffective-assistance-claims","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086277-351f9d47209b1c4867970de26e5c342e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183061&Signature=gDNbYGud5zhriiV4jELChw5Uq8ErKaNG6pSEWunNDYVWnQB6WCj~rVIBzPBk1n6rLPJB2kPwTON931T3GdPNpoAY-lvDrDvT8rS5g75KMeG6CeEf0Q0GepdwWeiaHnA5JlbwBqsXj7myQZ4887BL37ygPpwLRhgZHL5i6XhRQL-lcNOQB7kmPGMiVin~PQicYYg7o58ueoAX7EC5IkUuzZUda7EPPFDX8GoqkJusDVZ1TS5ANWKEP~C52FkGGGEgDaOBZTAqdMu38ykRyYzjzDTehb1v9gpX6i1Gu0c3TmOryavHyeYVC7czRN~EeSNGl0hHF7mF9S7S3HKIkFhF7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-08T13:29:04Z","article","The Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded Department of Children and Families (DCF) termination-of-parental-rights appeal in which the father’s lawyer argued the trial judge and agency did not adequately consider the children’s racial, cultural and heritage needs when approving a plan of adoption with a white pre-adoptive parent.

Attorney Deborah Dow for the father told the court that DCF regulations and state guidance require the agency and the court to consider race, culture and heritage in placement decisions even where the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) does not apply; she said the record showed no meaningful findings that the children’s racial and cultural needs would be met by the pre-adoptive resource. “Termination of parental rights cases are not adoption parent centric. They are child centric,” Dow told the panel.

Jeremy Bayless, for DCF, argued that many of the points raised by the father were not preserved or supported in the trial record, and he framed the central inquiry as the children’s best interests. Bayless said the evidence did not show the children had an existing, strong cultural connection that required a different placement and that the trial judge had applied correct legal standards. Bayless also addressed the ineffective-assistance claim, arguing counsel’s conduct did not fall below a reasonable attorney’s performance given the factual circumstances, including the father’s limited contact with the children while incarcerated and a restraining order that precluded visitation for a period.

Children’s counsel Daniel Katz told the panel the judge properly found the father’s history of serious domestic violence — including an incident that injured a pregnant mother and a later assault involving a firearm in front of the children — supported termination. Katz said the children had been in the current foster placement since they were infants and that the judge reasonably concluded termination was in their best interests.

Dow also invoked a recent decision (Commonwealth v. Mattis) in urging caution about using post-adolescent prognostications to deny parents a chance at reunification; the Department and children’s counsel responded that Mattis is a criminal case and that child-welfare law’s focus remains the best interest of the child and timeliness of permanency. The court took the appeal under advisement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 8, 2025, Meade, Hodgens, Toone, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","The Appeals Court heard argument in a Department of Children and Families termination-of-parental-rights appeal where the father’s lawyer argued the court and DCF did not adequately consider the children’s racial and cultural needs and that trial counsel was ineffective.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6086281,"Appeals court hears challenge to long-frozen funds in impounded grand jury investigation",253,1827000,2080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022&start=1827&end=2080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022/thumbnail_1827000.jpg","/articles/6086281/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-long-frozen-funds-in-impounded-grand-jury-investigation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086281-ebafc8cd8443005f9db86e58d97dbf79/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183061&Signature=KnNc3d15GpcBaR9oynq5lKtmV5lFtBX4EgePZs5Vj0LCqCljFuGBOQQD8c8yEwMSRZAi6Yy5stS-9sk3atnZKDXKKNm5ibj~-8XLnrKRQe4ITzpZIQfWjb1aSKiOXr6BKSFb7wIx17wnxMEiK4hm4ZKkI3gRfeHCJgPVL81utGC3UOqc7nutpOxlDuKdZSHv8r3NlXhjh2CWofOEG-BSiWotIilHzJz3ChQjz2zfGLLIK4f7-sDm62jIXMSlZ-s2guqpGavFxdaEnx8AxXXtQaPPKNb5JCydf3ROY7tDmAKsWGD7ByR~O4WM7WZBBZCh-7UntE4XfyMv~4GI3heAwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded matter in which counsel for an appellant asked the court to order return of funds that the Attorney General seized more than three years earlier during a grand jury investigation.

Michael Natola, representing the appellant, said the government has frozen the client’s property “three years, five months and 28 days” without charging him and without explaining when, if ever, a prosecution or forfeiture would be filed. Natola urged the court to recognize limits on how long the Commonwealth may hold property absent either a prosecution or a forfeiture proceeding.

Natola said the appellant sought only the return of legitimately-earned funds and argued earlier civil and criminal remedies had not provided effective relief; he characterized the delay as constitutionally problematic and contended the seizure was functionally a constructive forfeiture absent timely proceedings.

Assistant Attorney General Nicole Nixon, appearing for the Commonwealth, urged the panel to reject intervention into a grand jury investigation. She told the court that the motion to intervene was filed late in the proceeding and that Rule 24(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not govern secret grand jury proceedings. Nixon said the grand jury process is historically secret and that the subject and status of the investigation are not material to the intervention question. She acknowledged that the relevant statutory provision (G. L. c. 276, §3) requires return of property no longer needed for an investigation or trial but said the record contains no developed factual showing that the property is no longer needed.

Natola pressed the court on standing and timeliness and argued that longstanding case law requires forfeiture proceedings to be brought within a reasonable time. Nixon said the time the Commonwealth can hold property is constrained by the statute of limitations for underlying offenses and by the need to preserve prosecutorial confidentiality; she suggested civil remedies and, in some federal contexts, 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims have been used where appropriate.

The panel indicated it would take the impounded matter under advisement.","Appellant told the court the Attorney General has held seized funds for more than three years without charging crimes or returning money; the Commonwealth said intervention into a secret grand jury investigation is inappropriate and that forfeiture processes and statute of limitations limit relief.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6086285,"Appeals court hears challenge to juror discharge, evidence and verdict form in Colombo case",1738,119000,1857000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022&start=119&end=1857","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022/thumbnail_119000.jpg","/articles/6086285/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-juror-discharge-evidence-and-verdict-form-in-Colombo-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086285-79b54a5880a16a349b727fda992b37ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183061&Signature=K9g2bi37gYszJtwSdTXVOR0Qf97GqGjtmWa-QjA2Ss-j1zCAxlCquuKRbYmxjzhK~1~Y~ZEM0xyLF9TxfROImGvQ12IChqKqGumM9MgBU2XubNfv8yulL9H4b74WbKYrAqfAY~ERptwq2X1gI03AqgoJgDzu6Pcl5U0evY4IanUmT9x9BZiJ3L6gdp0RoGslbT1Ca9j1vKcJqlMYosML5JR61dl7OtCkOD75qRqHIl56MszYWDQTG9NVPiTb0QqYewU2iFK6p0x6dt-LyGcWs9TYxIjNDC6YrR8x8PR8NaewnWk4aeyWgL4v0puIQsXxXG~oTl6KNwEe5XiW3arSxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-justice panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in the appeal of Dominic Colombo, where defense attorney Keith Garland told the court that Judge Krepp erred by discharging a deliberating juror without the required on-the-record hearing and by admitting blood-vial evidence without adequate authentication.

Garland said the record shows two objections by defense counsel to the juror’s discharge and argued the judge should have contacted the juror (he suggested a phone or Zoom hearing) to determine whether the juror’s absence was for a personal medical reason rather than related to deliberations. “During deliberations, a juror may only be properly discharged for reasons personal to that juror,” Garland said, and he invoked case law he said requires a juror hearing.

Special Assistant District Attorney Marina Moriarty told the panel that the defense did not make a sufficiently specific objection at trial and that, given the COVID-era context and the judge’s description of the juror’s message (fever, severe GI symptoms), the judge’s handling did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Moriarty said it was “best practice” to call the juror in the parties’ presence but argued that the record contains no indication the juror was a holdout.

The defense also argued the verdict slip was defective because the jury returned a general verdict on multiple theories of culpability (per se OUI and reckless negligence), and Colombo’s counsel said the evidence supported conviction on only the per se OUI theory. Garland urged the court to require separate verdicts on distinct theories so juror unanimity on each theory can be confirmed.

On evidentiary issues, Garland argued the Commonwealth failed to authenticate vials of blood admitted at trial because no witness identified who drew the blood, who labeled it, or where it was stored. He also argued that portions of medical records describing “daily alcohol consumption” and alcohol-withdrawal symptoms were improperly admitted as impermissible propensity evidence.

Moriarty told the panel the Commonwealth relied on recent precedent (counsel cited Commonwealth v. Barrowby) allowing circumstantial authentication and argued the defense’s prejudice claims are speculative; she asked the court to defer to the trial judge’s credibility and harm assessments.

The panel took the case under advisement.","In oral argument, defense counsel for Dominic Colombo said the trial judge erred by discharging a deliberating juror without a hearing and by admitting and failing to authenticate blood-vial evidence; the Commonwealth responded that counsel’s objections were not specific and that the record shows no prejudice.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6086267,"Appeals court reviews contract language in sewer-easement dispute between Range Way and Billerica Developers",1420,8160000,9580000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022&start=8160&end=9580","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022/thumbnail_8160000.jpg","/articles/6086267/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-reviews-contract-language-in-sewer-easement-dispute-between-Range-Way-and-Billerica-Developers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086267-0e1581f9903d96bad748678a981637cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183061&Signature=gauphJr0~Ko~L7TNyXL42QN2a-6DS8ej-Hni9cUc1KP17fHMFlK82zh0UF0AfH0rdeJZ5LkP3cbfNW3EtJ~Uu6S2wytsafksfsrHlRnelPaqfjF2BjLSf6yz7P4JA5n1e4csOQZSkTYs-UEVRMGte9hvalETjfgQom8bIpKXPH-cTe~FGD0C5Cv5Rm8e7G4MZ9rHJxls1ZerMjSmF5jDg9Smk9pwqzuD7ZRgdVAUyCnI0aaFBPLT90v8Q-cF1e9ctfTjZFF81ksSedoZ~Nnb6K4S~0gbq5P0so-kYaenq7W1bOXcD5Fzb7S64ZezAOlW2FnBd0~RVJaiyXTRb7Z4Wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument over whether Range Way can exercise a recorded sewer-extension option tied to a defined term (“Curriculum Associates business”) and whether the easement and its exhibits were integrated so that successor owners may enforce the right.

Kelly Frey, representing Billerica Developers LLC, argued that section 2 of the easement expressly confines the option to be exercised by Curriculum Associates for Curriculum Associates’ publishing business and that the successor language in other parts of the agreement cannot be read to create a transferable right for third-party purchasers. Frey said the pleadings fail to establish that Range Way has identified permitted future uses or sought government approvals necessary to execute an extension over another owner’s land.

Range Way counsel Timothy Perry told the panel the instruments were recorded as an integrated agreement and that sections stating the provisions “run with the land” and that benefits “inure to successors and assigns” must be read together with the exhibit; he said that reading gives effect to the whole recorded document and permits successors to enforce the easement rights.

The trial court denied judgment on the pleadings and found the agreements to be integrated; the appeals court questioned how to harmonize defined terms in the exhibit with successor-and-assign language in the main instrument and explored whether unresolved factual issues (such as whether governmental approvals would be required and whether Range Way seeks to connect the sewer for Curriculum Associates’ business) preclude summary disposition.

The panel took argument under advisement.","A property-rights dispute turned on contract interpretation: whether a recorded, integrated easement and attached exhibit limit exercise of a sewer-extension option to the original business (\"Curriculum Associates\") or whether successors and assigns may enforce the right.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6086272,"Appeals court considers challenge to ‘weathertight’ injunction term after fire-damage dispute",1929,5314000,7243000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022&start=5314&end=7243","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2898133-6edc828f44793eded6cd9b912cffd022/thumbnail_5314000.jpg","/articles/6086272/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-considers-challenge-to-weathertight-injunction-term-after-fire-damage-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086272-2c30f5d94866e228bd35e11a3bece7c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183061&Signature=RBrjcejQREJPXH2aIvJffP604N5HDtVH4S1GEVznLeaefj7ntheWDHjT3C0JMw5w9hQ1LFjB5rLRn5MHXrKA381cfxr4H8XoGFWFMhGLTk8~oR9ReuQwxljrqSs8a4soIp8d4xT-nBM-ObqzKdykeXyZc0M9Q6kuJBWFGeyCkTRme62HkOnSiOFAYYUk2PZGkxhMHNsdh5b1xoMA~QXOj9fidl2MVUXvbEElXzIGBnlX~XeL1tjdInH7R1-01CuVtTlR7wHDmWPZayv4yto1bBuzxdfvbp6cFovkzXnkAm8bfUxVXyNfFqU-gXsuwQ2~kxTPtx6Rp~D3manV3Io6ew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in a dispute over a Nantucket condominium complex damaged by a July 2022 fire, focusing on whether a trial judge’s preliminary injunction improperly allowed rebuilding beyond emergency stabilization by authorizing “weathertight” repairs.

Appellant counsel Harry Haitay, representing an owner challenging the injunction, said the trial court abused its discretion by using the undefined term “weathertight” and that the term was later interpreted in a way that permitted broader reconstruction. He argued the injunction was therefore invalid and that the superior-court judge’s clarification did not cure the error.

Opposing counsel Stephen Griffin, for the plaintiff who obtained the injunction, said the work to make the building weather resistant remains incomplete and that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to a historic structure. Griffin said the preliminary injunction and subsequent proceedings were supported by findings that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on breach-of-fiduciary and related claims and that the trust would suffer irreparable harm if the property continued to be exposed to the elements.

The court questioned counsel about whether the appeal was moot because work had begun and whether the appellant properly sought review of the original preliminary injunction rather than only the subsequent motion to clarify. Counsel for the owners said they sought relief from what they described as an invalid injunction and that a wrongful injunction claim remains viable even after some work was done.

The panel took the arguments under advisement.","The court heard argument over whether a trial court’s preliminary injunction — which used the term “weathertight” — improperly authorized repair work that went beyond emergency stabilization; appellants say the injunction was wrong and that subsequent clarification materially changed the injunction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears challenge to termination of parental rights; defense raises race and ineffective-assistance claims

Appeals court hears challenge to long-frozen funds in impounded grand jury investigation

Appeals court hears challenge to juror discharge, evidence and verdict form in Colombo case

Appeals court reviews contract language in sewer-easement dispute between Range Way and Billerica Developers

Appeals court considers challenge to ‘weathertight’ injunction term after fire-damage dispute