28-02-2025
For parents who lose custody of their children to the state, a too-long wait
'There wasn't really a reason for them to take him away,' said the mother, who asked not to be named to protect her privacy. 'I hadn't tested positive for substances. I wasn't actively having a mental health crisis.'
She and her husband were supposed to have a court hearing within three days to persuade a judge to reunite them with their baby, according to state requirements. Instead, it took almost two weeks for an Essex County Juvenile Court judge to rule DCF made a mistake, a period during which mother and child would have begun forming their first strong bonds.
'The trauma of removal itself is compounded with every additional hour,' said Richard Wexler, executive director of the
Advertisement
The lack of urgency to schedule the mother's case is part of a longstanding and potentially harmful trend in Massachusetts juvenile courts. Almost two-thirds of the 1,551 temporary custody hearings in 2024 were not held within the three-day window, according to data shared by the Massachusetts Trial Court. In more than 200 cases, it took about one month to begin the hearing.
The right to separate children from their parents is one of the most extraordinary powers the state possesses, allowing lawyers, social workers, and court officers to shape a foundational human relationship. Because the impacts of child separation can be so profound, the state requires that temporary custody hearings be held within 72 hours of the emergency removal of a child so a judge can quickly determine whether a child's parents or guardians pose an immediate risk of abuse or neglect.
Advertisement
Yet the court system's failure to meet that 72-hour deadline, a problem that dates back for
In a brief statement, the courts said it 'continues to work to identify and reduce causes of delay and to improve the time to a permanent placement for children in Care and Protection proceedings.'
A DCF spokesperson said the agency provided feedback on the court's proposals and that it believes the proposed changes will help reduce delays.
Beyond the extreme emotional freight involved in a DCF intervention, the custody process is also a logistical challenge: Each case involves different sets of lawyers, representing the child, parents, and DCF, while shortages of lawyers, judges, and interpreters means that most professionals are also juggling caseloads with different clients in different courts. Parents, judges, and interpreters also have their own scheduling conflicts.
In the case of the mother from Haverhill, her first court appearance after the DCF intervention on May 23 was pushed back by the Memorial Day holiday to May 28 and was then rescheduled and assigned to a different judge, according to court records; that judge wasn't available to hold the hearing until June 5.
Moreover, the hearings themselves are complicated, typically taking days to resolve.
'We're talking about parental rights, and we're talking about the welfare of kids,' said Paula Carey, retired chief justice of the state's trial court. 'You've got two, what could be competing, constitutional due process rights that are banging up against each other.'
Advertisement
Massachusetts court records show judges usually support DCF's decisions to remove children; last year judges ruled children should be returned to their parents or guardians in almost 12 percent of temporary custody hearings.
The rules also allow parents to waive their rights to a temporary custody hearing.
Wexler, the coalition director, said many states fail to consistently meet their own deadlines for speedy custody hearings, which can range from 24 hours to nine days. The difficulties in Massachusetts, though, are exacerbated by the particularly large number of cases DCF handles, he said. More than 6 percent of children in Massachusetts were referred to
the state's child protection system in 2023, compared with less than 5 percent nationally, according to data compiled by
Court officials proposed allowing continuances beyond 72 hours only when a courtroom or personnel, such as lawyers or judges, are unavailable. When there is a delay, the hearing should be pushed off no more than six days. Temporary custody hearings would have to be resolved over consecutive days, and the hearings would be required to conclude within 30 days of the removal of a child.
Most delays were explained by a party involved in the case asking for additional time, according to court data,
for example, to ensure
parents and children receive fair hearings, according to lawyers in public comments on the court's new rules.
Attorneys asked the court to consider loosening the proposed new guidelines to acknowledge it can take more than three days to arrange for an interpreter, find medical records, or secure expert testimony within three days.
Advertisement
'It matters why the 72-hour hearing isn't happening in a timely matter,' said Alexis Williams Torrey, co-director of strategic advocacy for the Children's Law Center of Massachusetts. 'If it is a parent or a child asking for a continuance in furthering due process, that's different than court schedules or lack of attorneys.'
In some cases, delays also allow a parent to make adjustments, such as finding a domestic violence shelter or obtaining a restraining order, which could allow them to be reunited with their children, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which arranges court-appointed representation for children and parents, argued in public comments.
Court officials said they have revised their reform proposals in light of public comments from late last year and have sent them to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for approval. They have not yet been made public.
Yet the changes would do little to resolve staffing shortages that contribute to the hearing delays. About 8 percent of delays last year were due to a lack of court-appointed counsel, the court reported. The committee for public counsel has shortened waitlists for lawyers by boosting recruitment efforts, though it continues to struggle to supplement its ranks with private attorneys, who handle most child protection cases, said Daniel Mahoney, deputy chief counsel of its Children and Family Law Division.
The public defender's office pays $85 an hour to private attorneys, but the cases are challenging, and of the 725 private lawyers certified to handle child protection cases, about a third did not regularly take cases.
Advertisement
'They're time-consuming, particularly at the beginning with the temporary custody hearing,' he said. 'If you represent a child, you might represent a child for a dozen years.'
In the Haverhill mother's case, the state placed her baby boy with
members of her church. During that time, she said she tried to keep herself busy, including pumping milk every three hours that was stockpiled for the family caring for her child.
She has since moved to Marblehead and has also regained custody of her daughter. While she feels her life has stabilized, she is still traumatized by her separation from her son.
'It was horrible,' she said. 'It wasn't fair for them to take away my child on just allegations of me not having insight.'
Jason Laughlin can be reached at
