In re A.H., 2013 ME 85

A.H., born November 2010, suffers from severe congenital conditions (Alagille Syndrome, cholestasis, congenital heart disease, urinary reflux) requiring constant, specialized medical and nutritional care.
While in her parents’ care, A.H. was hospitalized three times for inadequate nutrition; after placement in foster care (Nov. 2011), she gained weight, has not been rehospitalized, and receives intensive ongoing therapies and frequent medical appointments.
Foster parents provide continuous supervision (including overnight monitoring and carrying a gastrostomy pump), in-home help, weekly therapies, and are willing to adopt.
Both parents underwent CANEP evaluations showing limited intellectual capacity and low perceptual reasoning; they failed to acquire the skills to manage A.H.’s needs and did not acknowledge their role in her jeopardy.
The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights (July 2012); after an evidentiary hearing the District Court terminated both parents’ rights (Dec. 19, 2012), finding statutory grounds of unfitness and that termination/adoption was in the child’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported finding parents unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i),(ii)	Parents: They love A.H. and made efforts; evidence insufficient to show they will be unable to protect or take responsibility in a timely way	State/Department: CANEP results and parents’ inability to learn or accept responsibility show they cannot meet A.H.’s critical needs now or in foreseeable time	Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports unfitness finding
Whether termination was in A.H.’s best interest given parents’ love and desire for reunification	Parents: Termination not in best interest because of parental love and desire to care for child	Department: Child’s need for permanent, stable, expert care and foster parents’ ability to provide it outweigh parents’ affection	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; permanency and health needs favor termination and adoption
Whether Department satisfied statutory good-faith reunification efforts (22 M.R.S. § 4041)	Parents: Department failed to engage in adequate reunification efforts	Department: Rehabilitation plan was provided and services offered; parents signed plan	Court affirmed: record and signed plan show Department satisfied obligations

In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (standard for reviewing parental unfitness findings and burden of proof)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (public policy favoring permanency and stability for children informs best-interest analysis)