It has to be if the law is going to distinguish DCF authority over a minor, from parental authority over a minor.
But my take on the case is that it starts from the premise of the minor's rights. And if that is the starting point, the minor is the same, whether control over her is (otherwise) under DCF or private guardianship.
In the current case, the court already has a compelling interest as the child, as well as the unborn child, is a ward of the state.
Again, my take is that the court views itself as agnostic. It's function is to protect the rights of the minor. It is the DCF who has the burden of showing that it has an interest that overrides the minors rights.
May not be a minor point but DCF's authority is whatever the court gives to it..