CARE AND PROTECTION

Care and Protection of Rashida, 489 Mass. 128 (2022) 

What constitutes “reasonable efforts” when DCF is involved in your case?

A case involving new rules for DCF as to what constitutes “reasonable efforts” when DCF is involved in your case.

Rashida is the second iteration of a child protection case in which the Court clarifies that "under G. L. c. 119, § 29C, a Juvenile Court judge conducts a hearing to determine whether the Department of Children and Families (department) has made ongoing reasonable efforts to make it possible for a child who previously has been removed from his or her home and committed to the custody of the department to return safely to his or her parent or guardian, the department must prove that it has made reasonable efforts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” [129-137]

In a previous iteration of Rashida the Court decided the Juvenile Court must hold hearings at least annually to determine whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child and parent or guardian. [128] The Department, the child, and the mother in this case jointly petitioned the Court for clarification of the evidentiary standard used to determine “reasonable efforts”. [129]

The Court noted there was no standard provided by statute; therefore the "same standard of proof applies at every stage in a care and protection case where a reasonable efforts determination is required or permitted” and that "due process demands application of a standard appropriate to the ‘particular situation’ which is presented”. [129, 132]

The Court determined that fair preponderance of the evidence was the appropriate standard of proof through the application of the Eldridge Test articulated by the United States Supreme Court; "which requires consideration of (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” [132]

Upon balancing the three factors of the Eldridge Test, the Court concluded that “proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to satisfy procedural due process in reasonable efforts determinations. Particularly important to, and ultimately dispositive of, our over-all balancing of the Eldridge factors is the availability of multiple opportunities for judicial review of the reasonable efforts being made by the department.” [137]

If you have questions whether or not DCF is using reasonable efforts to reunify you with your Children, please give us a call.