In A.P. v. Department of Children and Families, (MA App. Ct., Oct. 21, 2016), a Massachusetts state appellate court vacated and remanded a decision of a Department of Children and Families Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer had upheld a staff finding that A.P., a foster mother, had neglected needs of Beth, her foster child. The court said in part:
The hearing officer found that Beth “expressed not feeling safe within the [foster] home” because she was “feeling pressured to be baptized.” Yet the hearing officer also found that A.P. had given “notice to [DCF] prior to [the foster] placement [that Beth] would need to be baptized to remain in placement.” This finding was supported by a DCF supervisor’s testimony that A.P. and her husband, before Beth was placed with them, had made clear that Beth would need to be baptized for them to adopt her. The supervisor further testified that, although the clinical team had warned A.P. that Beth might not accept being baptized, “it’s likely that [Beth] told the foster family that she would agree to be baptized so that she could have a family.”
In finding that A.P.’s pressuring Beth to be baptized constituted neglect of Beth’s emotional needs, the hearing officer failed to address the “troublesome facts” that (1) DCF and Beth were on notice of A.P.’s commitment to having Beth baptized, (2) DCF nevertheless placed Beth in A.P.’s home, and (3) Beth likely agreed to be baptized. Again, it is difficult to see how DCF could later find that A.P.’s pressuring Beth to be baptized constituted neglect, without either Beth or DCF having first given notice to A.P. that they had changed their minds and that further pressure was unwelcome and inappropriate. The hearing officer must resolve this issue.