Adoption by Jessica M., 239 A.3d 633

Maternal aunt and uncle (guardians) petitioned the Androscoggin County Probate Court to terminate both parents’ rights and to adopt the child; petitions filed in 2018.
Both parents were incarcerated during litigation; each had counsel; the father appeared at trial telephonically and repeatedly sought a continuance to secure video appearance.
Final hearing spanned three days (Apr. 10–11, 2019; Aug. 13, 2019). The court denied continuances for additional video access, allowed telephonic participation with recesses for private consultation, and kept the record open for a possible video hookup.
Petitioners sought to introduce the father’s 2017 federal sentencing transcript; the court admitted only the sentence (as an order) and the criminal judgment.
Probate Court found both parents abandoned/unfit and that termination was in the child’s best interest; parents appealed arguing (1) due process violation by telephonic appearance, (2) erroneous consideration of the sentencing transcript, and (3) insufficient evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Due process — telephonic appearance	Petitioners: telephonic testimony allowed; court provided meaningful participation.	Father: denial of continuance for video deprived him of ability to show demeanor, violating due process.	Court: no due process violation; telephonic participation plus counsel, recesses, notice, record openness was fundamentally fair.
2. Evidentiary — sentencing transcript	Petitioners: transcript admissible (as judicial notice or evidence).	Father: transcript (findings) inadmissible; authenticity/weight problematic.	Court: properly considered only the sentence (an order) and criminal judgment; taking notice of sentence was proper.
3. Sufficiency — mother unfit/abandonment	Petitioners: mother’s substance abuse, incarceration, no contact → abandonment and unfitness; termination serves child’s best interest.	Mother: contestable but largely conceded; argued father’s role should affect outcome.	Court: findings supported — mother abandoned, unfit; termination appropriate.
4. Sufficiency — father unfit & best interest	Petitioners: father’s long-term incarceration, criminal history, limited contact, and prior failure to care support unfitness and best interest of termination.	Father: incarceration alone insufficient; guardianship shows permanency without termination.	Court: clear and convincing evidence father unable to meet child’s needs in timeframe; termination was in child’s best interest.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing test for procedural protections)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (incarcerated parent must be given meaningful opportunity to participate; alternatives to physical presence)
Adoption by Stefan S., 223 A.3d 468 (Me. 2020) (standards of review and burden in parental-termination cases)
Adoption of Lily T., 997 A.2d 722 (Me. 2010) (role of guardianship evidence in best-interest analysis)
In re Alijah K., 147 A.3d 1159 (Me. 2016) (incarceration not dispositive; inability to meet child’s needs supports unfitness)
In re Jonas, 164 A.3d 120 (Me. 2017) (judicial notice limited to recognizing existence of another court’s order, not its factual findings)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (different burdens of proof affect collateral estoppel application)
In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (appellate deference to trial court on child best-interest determinations)