Adoption of L.E.
2012 ME 127
| Me. | 2012Background
- L.E. born May 30, 2008 to married parents with prior criminal histories.
- Mother previously embezzled (2003 New Hampshire) and served four months.
- Father previously assaulted his infant child (1997) and spent seven years in prison.
- Parents committed fraud against L.E.'s maternal grandparents to obtain loans; grandparents learned of fraud in Aug. 2009.
- Grandparents obtained temporary and then permanent guardianship; they petitioned to adopt and terminate parental rights in Nov. 2010.
- Hearing (July–August 2011) featured expert testimony diagnosing mother with antisocial personality disorder and discussing rehabilitation prospects; court terminated rights Jan. 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not ordering rehabilitation before termination | Harris (the mother) argues rehabilitation was required | Parents contend no duty to compel rehabilitation under Adoption Act | No error; rehabilitation orders not required in adoption context |
| Whether the record supports finding the mother unfit | Mother unable to provide stable, predictable care | Mother may improve with treatment but record shows unfitness | Clear and convincing evidence supports unfitness under §4055(1)(B)(2)(ii) |
| Whether termination served L.E.'s best interests | Termination necessary for permanency and to avoid ongoing conflict | Continued litigation could harm L.E. | Termination in best interests; adoption with grandparents appropriate |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in best-interest determination | Record shows L.E. stable with grandparents; adoption favored | Stability and permanency require termination | No abuse of discretion; record supports decision |
| Whether 22 M.R.S. § 4055 rehabilitation provisions apply in this context | § 4041 duties compel rehabilitation prior to termination | Adoption Act does not require circuit-breaking rehabilitation before termination | § 4041 not applicable; no sua sponte rehabilitation order required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brandon D., 2004 ME 98 (Me. 2004) (clear and convincing standard for unfitness in termination trials)
- In re Alana S., 2002 ME 126 (Me. 2002) (parent fitness considerations and rehabilitation timing)
- In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123 (Me. 2005) (best interests and stability in termination decisions)
- In re Doris G., 2006 ME 142 (Me. 2006) (rehabilitation duties in protective context; not controlling for termination)
- In re Daniel C., 480 A.2d 766 (Me. 1984) (constitutional considerations in termination cases)
- In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114 (Me. 2001) (due process and unfitness findings)