198 A.3d 791
Me.2018Background
- Mother and stepfather petitioned the Kennebec County Probate Court to terminate the biological father’s parental rights to free the children for adoption by the stepfather; one-day hearing held May 16, 2018.
- Court conducted an in camera interview of the 17-year-old daughter S.S.; statements included allegations the father had grabbed her by the neck.
- Father had court-ordered visitation and child support obligations after a 2015 divorce but ceased regular visits and support for nearly three years; father admitted one physical incident when daughter was 12.
- The younger child P.S. has serious disabilities; stepfather has provided ongoing, structured care and attends medical appointments.
- Probate court entered separate judgments terminating the father’s rights to each child under statutory grounds, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the 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, arguing (1) improper use of unsworn in camera statements in the judgments and (2) insufficient evidence to support parental-unfitness findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Stepfather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of in camera statements | Statements from S.S. were unsworn and not subject to cross-examination; court exceeded statute by treating them as evidence | S.S.’s in camera statements duplicated mother’s sworn testimony and were contextually relevant to adoptee’s attitudes and safety concerns | Court erred to label in camera remarks as testimony but error was harmless because mother’s sworn testimony duplicated the content and father could/could have contradicted it |
| Sufficiency of evidence for parental unfitness | Father claimed he attempted visits and was impeded by mother moving; he argued evidence did not prove unwillingness/unfitness by clear and convincing standard | Mother/stepfather demonstrated long absence (≈3 years), lack of financial support, failure to pursue judicial remedies, and father’s inability to manage child’s special needs | Evidence supported finding by clear and convincing evidence that father was unwilling or unable to assume responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet children’s needs |
| Consideration of best interests before unfitness finding | (Not argued on appeal) — court addressed best interests before expressly stating parental-unfitness finding | Probate court nonetheless made the required unfitness finding elsewhere in the judgments | Sequence error noted but review for obvious error only; no reversible error because required unfitness finding was made |
| Prejudice from evidentiary error | Father argued admission of in camera statements prejudiced outcome | Appellees: content was redundant and father offered contrary testimony | No prejudice shown; error harmless and judgments affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Portia L., 2018 ME 51, 183 A.3d 747 (discussing clear-and-convincing standard in adoption contexts)
- Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220, 175 A.3d 639 (appellate review of probate factfinding; findings affirmed if supported by any evidence)
- In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, 65 A.3d 1260 (harmless-error analysis for inadmissible evidence)
- Greaton v. Greaton, 2012 ME 17, 36 A.3d 913 (appellate standard that procedural error requires showing of actual prejudice)
- In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, 55 A.3d 463 (due process and harmless-error considerations when testimonial evidence is absent)
- In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993) (inadmissible evidence may be harmless if duplicated elsewhere in the record)
- Adoption of L.E., 2012 ME 127, 56 A.3d 1234 (standard of review for clear-and-convincing proof)
- Adoption of Hali D., 2009 ME 70, 974 A.2d 916 (trial court must find parental unfitness before best-interests analysis)
- In re Michelle W., 2001 ME 123, 777 A.2d 283 (procedural sequencing in termination/adoption decisions)
- In re Joshua B., 2001 ME 115, 776 A.2d 1240 (obvious-error review when an appellant does not raise an issue)