In re Addilyn R.
176 A.3d 184
| Me. | 2017Background
- Mother referred to Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Sept 2016 but did not cooperate and was never screened for the program.
- Since July 2016 the Department requested 23 drug screens; mother missed 11 and missed 8 of the 2017 requests. Positive tests for cocaine (Oct 2016), benzodiazepines (Mar 3 & Mar 20, 2017), and marijuana on two later occasions; mother admits regular marijuana use and reported alcohol use.
- Child has been in Department custody and placed with experienced foster parents since June 2, 2016; foster parents provided stable care and addressed the child’s medical needs (asthma).
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended termination of both parents’ rights; court found permanency required and foster parents could provide it.
- Trial court applied statutory rebuttable presumption for chronic parental substance abuse and found by clear and convincing evidence that mother was unfit and termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding mother unfit under 22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),(b) | Mother contended evidence was insufficient to show unfitness | Department argued chronic substance abuse, missed screens, and refusal of FTDC support finding of unfitness | Court affirmed: record supports finding of unfitness; statutory rebuttable presumption appropriately applied as permissive inference |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Mother argued termination was not shown to be in child’s best interest | Department and GAL argued foster placement provides stability and permanency; mother failed to take steps to remedy substance abuse | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence termination serves child’s best interest |
| Proper application of statutory rebuttable presumption (22 M.R.S. §4055(1‑A)(C)) | Mother argued presumption improperly shifted burden | Court treated presumption as permissive inference and maintained burden on Department, so no improper burden shift | Court held statute may be used as an evidentiary inference; trial court did not err |
| Effect of mother’s refusal to participate in FTDC | Mother argued refusal should not determine outcome | Department argued refusal demonstrated unwillingness to protect child and failure to remediate substance abuse | Court found refusal significant evidence of unwillingness to remedy condition and supported unfitness and best-interest findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Evelyn A., 169 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017) (statutory presumption treated as permissive inference; burden remains with the Department)
- In re K.M., 118 A.3d 812 (Me. 2015) (affirm where any one of multiple alternative bases for unfitness is supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Kayla M., 785 A.2d 330 (Me. 2001) (standard for finding termination is in child’s best interest)