In re A.M., 2012 ME 118

DHHS petitioned for protection and then termination of parental rights of the mother regarding her child A.M.
The child had been in the paternal grandmother’s care since 2010 after a jeopardy finding against the mother.
The termination hearing was set for December 7, 2011, while the mother was released from incarceration in the early morning hours that day.
At the outset, the court denied the mother's motion to continue the hearing due to her custody status.
The Department called an arresting officer as a witness despite the officer not being on the original witness list, and the court allowed his testimony to explain the mother's absence.
The court found the mother unfit and that termination was in the child’s best interests, noting the mother’s minimal communication and failure to participate in reunification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a continuance violated due process	Mother argues due process requires presence given parenting rights at stake.	State contends no due process violation; record showed notice and opportunity to be heard.	No due process violation; hearing proceeded with opportunity to be heard.
Admission of arresting officer’s testimony not listed as witness	Officer not listed; his testimony violated discovery and due process.	Mother’s absence, not prolonging the state’s case, justified testimony; alternatives existed but were not pursued by mother.	Court did not abuse discretion; officer testimony allowed for understanding absence.
Whether findings of unfitness and best interests were supported	Mother contends housing and other findings were unsupported.	Evidence showed abandonment, failure to participate in reunification, ongoing substance issues, and inadequate contact.	Findings supported; termination in child’s best interests affirmed.

In re Trever L., 973 A.2d 752 (Me. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for procedural rulings in parental rights cases)
In re Misty B., 749 A.2d 754 (Me. 2000) (notice and opportunity to be heard; due process in termination)
In re Kristy Y., 752 A.2d 166 (Me. 2000) (parental rights termination requires safeguards and impartial fact-finder)
In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (presence not mandatory; notice and opportunity to be heard)
In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450 (Me. 1986) (due process balancing in incarceration contexts)
In re Natasha S., 943 A.2d 602 (Me. 2008) (harmless error—underlying support for findings)