172 A.3d 922
Me.2017Background
- Mother appealed District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to daughter Anastasia under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(ii).
- Court found mother had ongoing substance abuse (positive alcohol tests in Jan, June, Sep 2016; diagnosed moderate cannabis use disorder) and minimized those problems at trial.
- Court found persistent domestic-violence dynamics and that mother had not reliably cut off contact with the child’s father or developed skills/boundaries to keep herself and the child safe.
- DHHS provided reunification efforts: service referrals, transportation, supervised visitation, and family team meetings; mother had been in out-of-home placement for ~20 months.
- Child (age two) was placed in a foster home since April 2016, well bonded, healthy, with plan of adoption if termination upheld.
- Trial court concluded mother was unwilling/unable to protect and take responsibility within a timeframe meeting the child’s needs and that termination was in the child’s best interest; judgment affirmed by Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to find mother unfit under §4055(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) | Mother argued the evidence did not establish she was unwilling/unable to protect or take responsibility within a reasonable time | DHHS argued mother’s ongoing substance abuse and inability to resolve domestic-violence exposure showed unfitness and inability to meet child’s needs in required timeframe | Court held record contained clear and convincing evidence of unfitness; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Mother argued termination was not required; she contended progress and services made termination unnecessary | DHHS argued delay and unresolved risks (substance use, domestic violence, unstable relationship with father) made termination necessary to protect child and allow permanency | Court held termination with adoption permanency plan was in child’s best interest and decision was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for factual findings in parental-termination cases)
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (appellate standard reviewing best-interest determination for abuse of discretion)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (standards for termination and best-interest analysis)