Adoption of Tobias D.
2012 ME 45
| Me. | 2012Background
- Tobias D. was born in 2009; mother in Indiana conceived with multiple men including RM and her husband.
- Guardians in Maine informally arranged to adopt Tobias and filed adoption, guardianship, and temporary guardians petitions in 2009.
- Mother repeatedly listed father as unknown; RM later acknowledged paternity after learning of Tobias, triggering paternity-related proceedings.
- Probate Court initially appointed guardians as limited temporary guardians and later RM sought to establish parental rights in 2010.
- Court found RM would be considered Tobias's biological father for proceedings but did not rely on DNA tests; no paternity testing occurred initially.
- Judgment denied RM's parental rights and granted guardians' termination petition under 18-A M.R.S. § 9-204; this ruling is vacated and remanded for DNA testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RM is Tobias's biological father | RM asserts biological paternity supported by acknowledgment. | Guardians rely on initial unknown paternity and lack of tested evidence. | Vacate and remand for DNA testing to establish paternity |
| Whether 18-A M.R.S. § 9-201 governs RM's parental-rights eligibility | RM should be afforded parental rights if he is the biological father awaiting testing. | Statute governs putative fathers; authorities should proceed per § 9-201 framework. | Remand for DNA testing; applicability clarified but unresolved without test results |
| Whether termination of RM's parental rights was proper under § 22 M.R.S. § 4055 | Guardians seek termination by clear and convincing evidence due to unfitness. | RM's potential parenting ability and relationship history were not properly considered; process due is at stake. | Not reached; judgment vacated pending paternity results |
| Whether the probate process complied with due process and proper statutory procedure | Procedural steps should protect biological father’s rights and ensure proper notices and testing. | Proceedings should align with statutory framework; reliance on appearance and affidavits is insufficient. | Remand for DNA testing and proper application of statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 80 (Me. 2010) (recognizes right to parent a child absent unfitness)
- In re Baby Duncan, 2009 ME 85 (Me. 2009) (best interests and parental rights interplay; caution against overbroad reasoning)
- In re Cody T., 2009 ME 95 (Me. 2009) (limits on lack of opportunity to parent; parental fitness context)
- In re Peter M., 602 A.2d 1161 (Me. 1992) (adoption and termination standards in probate context)
- State v. Paradis, 10 A.3d 695 (Me. 2010) (DNA testing and biological parenthood standards)
- In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18 (Me. 2009) (due process and termination standards in guardianship/adoption)
- In re Shulikov, 2000 ME 70 (Me. 2000) (application of Title 22 to termination petitions in probate context)
- Philbrook v. Theriault, 2008 ME 152 (Me. 2008) (standing and custody considerations in Maine)