A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded care-and-protection appeal over whether a juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a continuance the mother sought to introduce methadone clinic records (Department of Children and Families v. Mother, 2025-0295).

Colleen Duran, who presented argument for the mother, said the juvenile judge had twice granted time to obtain treatment records and described the records as "highly relevant," but then denied a further continuance after the defense sought a September 4 submission of the records. Duran said the records would have shown recent engagement in treatment and negative screens during the months before trial and that, because the juvenile court identified substance use as the central issue, the records could have tipped the fitness analysis. "These records were significant," Duran told the panel, noting the mother testified to eight months of treatment participation, visits, and program attendance.

Carol Frizzoli, appearing for the Department of Children and Families, said the substance-use evidence the mother points to consisted of four methadone clinic screens (one of which showed marijuana positive) and a provider letter, and that several pretrial continuances had already been granted. Frizzoli noted the juvenile judge expressly credited the mother's recent engagement but concluded those gains had to be weighed against a long history of unaddressed substance use, domestic violence, criminal activity, and failures to address mental health and other parental shortcomings. "These are methadone treatment records, not proof of seven months of sustained sobriety," Frizzoli said, adding the department opposed the continuances because records were uncertified and the department had no basis to stipulate to authenticity.

Child counsel Creeley Pangaro told the panel the record does not show reliable documentation of seven months of sobriety and that the juvenile judge permissibly denied the third continuance after setting a clear deadline in the earlier continuance order. Pangaro emphasized the child's stability in a pre-adoptive home since she was three months old and urged that permanence not be delayed where the record supports unfitness.

The panel questioned counsel about the sequence of events: whether required HIPAA releases were timely signed, what steps the parents or counsel took during the continuance period, and what prejudice could be shown if records were admitted post-trial. Counsel for the mother argued the record shows the judge considered the materials "highly relevant" and that, because the judge cited substance use as the central issue, denying evidence the judge had said mattered was prejudicial.

Ending: The panel took the matter under advisement; the court will issue a written decision addressing whether the juvenile court abused its discretion or violated due process by denying the further continuance.