In re Amanda H., 204 A.3d 869

Child was removed by the Department of Health and Human Services at three days old after a petition alleging mother's untreated mental-health issues, association with unsafe persons, and unsanitary, hazardous housing; custody transferred to the Department on the day of filing.
Jeopardy was found at a September 2017 hearing based in part on the mother's past behavior and untreated mental-health problems.
The Department filed for termination of parental rights in December 2017; the father consented to termination and is not a party to this appeal.
After a two-day termination hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or to take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
The court found the mother has a long history of mental-health issues, low intellectual functioning, prior terminations regarding other children, failure to acknowledge being an unsafe parent, ongoing association with unsafe persons, and historically filthy housing; although she made recent improvements, the court concluded they were too little, too late.
The court terminated parental rights, concluding termination is in the child’s best interest to provide permanency; judgment affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother is unfit / unable to protect child from jeopardy	Amanda argued the court erred; cited recent progress and mental-health treatment as evidence of changed circumstances	Department argued mother's longstanding untreated mental illness, low intellectual functioning, prior terminations, unsafe associations, and unsanitary housing show continued inability to protect child	Court held clear and convincing evidence supports finding mother unable/unwilling to protect child within a child-centered timeframe; affirmed
Whether termination is in child’s best interest	Amanda argued termination was premature given recent improvements	Department argued permanency for the child outweighed mother’s late, limited progress	Court held termination is in child’s best interest to secure permanency; affirmed
Adequacy of trial-court findings	Amanda contended findings were sparse and relied on recitation of testimony	Department maintained findings (though partly narrative) were supported by competent evidence	Court said findings were supported by evidence, but reiterated trial courts should make specific affirmative findings rather than recount testimony; affirmed

In re David G., 659 A.2d 859 (Me. 1995) (judgment must inform parties and appellate court of basis for decision)
In re Sara K., 611 A.2d 71 (Me. 1992) (necessity for specific findings in termination judgments)
Adoption of Shayleigh S., 198 A.3d 791 (Me. 2018) (trial courts should state important facts as affirmative findings rather than merely cite testimony)
In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (standards for inability to protect from jeopardy)
In re Child of Daniel Q., 182 A.3d 735 (Me. 2018) (appellate deference when arguments attack weight/credibility)
In re Kafia M., 742 A.2d 919 (Me. 1999) (historical conduct is relevant to prospective inquiry about ability to protect)
In re David W., 568 A.2d 513 (Me. 1990) (jeopardy to one child can be based on evidence about a parent's actions toward another child)
In re Child of Eric K., 180 A.3d 666 (Me. 2018) (timeframe for evaluating parental progress must be viewed from child’s perspective)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (permanency is a key consideration in best-interest analysis)