Guardianship of Aubree Thayer, 136 A.3d 349

Mother returned to Maine to live with maternal grandparents while pregnant; father remained in Colorado on probation and had minimal early contact with Aubree.
Father moved to Maine when Aubree was nine months old, lived briefly with mother and grandparents, but provided only occasional, prompted care.
Mother died of a heroin overdose; grandparents provided nearly all care while father engaged in substance use, unstable housing, and at times drove under the influence with Aubree.
Father removed Aubree from grandparents’ care; grandparents petitioned for guardianship under 18-A M.R.S. § 5-204(d) alleging a demonstrated lack of consistent participation by the father.
Probate Court found the father had chronically abused substances, failed to maintain employment or stable housing, neglected Aubree’s medical needs, and remained unable to care for her; granted limited guardianship to maternal grandmother.
Father appealed, arguing statutory misinterpretation and due process violation; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding lack of consistent participation must reflect current parental unfitness at time of hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “lack of consistent participation” requires parent’s physical absence	Father: requires physical absence during period and at time of hearing	Grandparents: can include failure to perform parental duties even if physically present	Court: Not limited to physical absence; includes failure/refusal to meet parental duties
Temporal scope of participation showing	Father: element must exist "currently" at time petition is considered	Grandparents: past and ongoing conduct showing de facto guardian status is relevant	Court: Must relate to parent’s current unfitness; lack of participation proven at hearing (current inability that may dramatically harm child)
Statutory factors in § 5-101(1-C) — whether exhaustive	Father: factors impose strict test requiring absence-based showing	Grandparents: factors are nonexhaustive considerations	Court: Factors are minimum considerations, not a definitive test
Due process / notice claim	Father: court applied §5-204(c) standard without notice, violating due process	Grandparents: court appropriately referenced related case law to define §5-204(d)’s unfitness concept; father had notice of allegations	Court: Rejected due process claim; court properly applied and explained standard and father had notice

Jewel M. v. Guardianship (Jewel I), 989 A.2d 726 (Me. 2010) (requires current parental unfitness for guardianship under intolerable living-situation standard)
Jewel M. v. Guardianship (Jewel II), 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (procedural discussion of guardianship proceedings and state intrusion into parent-child relationship)
Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (parental liberty interest and distinction between parenting and caretaking responsibilities)
Guardianship of Chamberlain, 118 A.3d 229 (Me. 2015) (clear-and-convincing proof requirement for §5-204(d) petitions)
Tobias D., 40 A.3d 990 (Me. 2012) (state intervention justified where parent unable or unwilling to meet child’s basic needs)
In re Krystal S., 584 A.2d 672 (Me. 1990) (court must assess parent’s fitness at time of hearing)