History
  • No items yet
midpage
223 A.3d 468
Me.
2020
Read the full case

Background

  • Mother and stepfather filed petitions in Kennebec County Probate Court to adopt two children; mother filed petitions to terminate the biological father’s parental rights so the stepfather could adopt.\
  • Older child (b. 2006) is developmentally disabled; younger child (b. 2009) has genetic and behavioral disorders and requires one-on-one supervision; both have IEPs and lifelong special needs.\
  • Father’s contact declined beginning in 2015; no in-person contact since July 2016 and no communication since May 2018; father moved to Florida in Dec. 2016 and owes over $30,000 in child support.\
  • Trial court found mother impeded contact but concluded father nevertheless made no legal effort to enforce contact or to engage with children’s schools/medical providers; stepfather has been the primary, consistent caregiver.\
  • Probate Court terminated father’s parental rights after a one-day hearing, concluding by clear and convincing evidence that father was unwilling or unable to take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and that termination was in the children’s best interests. Father appealed.\

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness and best interests Father: record lacks clear-and-convincing proof he was unfit or that termination served children’s best interests Mother/stepfather: father’s long absence, failure to enforce rights, lack of involvement with providers, and children’s special needs made termination highly probable Court: Affirmed — competent evidence supported findings of unfitness and best interests; no clear error or abuse of discretion
Sequence of findings (fitness before best-interest analysis) Father: court erred by announcing best-interest finding before fitness finding Mother/stepfather: court understood legal sequence and made all required findings despite word order in judgment Court: No obvious error; record shows court applied correct sequence and standards
Whether an open adoption (preserving father's rights) was a lawful option Father: probate court could have approved adoption without terminating his parental rights (three legal parents or an open adoption) Mother/stepfather: Adoption Act requires consent of all living parents or termination under Title 22; Probate Court lacks statutory authority to adopt over an unconsenting living parent unless that parent’s rights are terminated Court: Father’s theory misunderstands the Adoption Act; Probate Court could not lawfully grant adoption without terminating father’s rights or obtaining his consent
Necessity of termination to enable adoption Father: termination was unnecessary because adoption could proceed without terminating his rights Mother/stepfather: Termination was necessary because adoption statutes require parental consent unless rights are terminated Court: Affirmed that termination was necessary under controlling statutes and within Probate Court’s limited jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

  • Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (parental liberty interest; clear-and-convincing unfitness standard and two-step analysis)\
  • Adoption of Shayleigh S., 198 A.3d 791 (Me. 2018) (standard for reviewing fitness and best-interest findings)\
  • Guardianship of Ard, 154 A.3d 609 (Me. 2017) (assumption of necessary fact findings when no Rule 52 motion filed)\
  • Adoption of Hali D., 974 A.2d 916 (Me. 2009) (parental-rights termination precedents)\
  • In re Michelle W., 777 A.2d 283 (Me. 2001) (due-process constraints on termination procedure and sequencing)\
  • In re Joshua B., 776 A.2d 1240 (Me. 2001) (standard for obvious error review on appeal)\
  • In re Melanie S., 712 A.2d 1036 (Me. 1998) (Probate Court jurisdiction over adoption petitions)\
  • Marin v. Marin, 797 A.2d 1265 (Me. 2002) (Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction)\
  • Bonner v. Emerson, 105 A.3d 1023 (Me. 2014) (review of a trial court’s determination of its authority is de novo)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Adoption by Stefan S.
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jan 9, 2020
Citations: 223 A.3d 468; 2020 ME 5
Court Abbreviation: Me.
Log In
    Adoption by Stefan S., 223 A.3d 468