In re Anthony M.
195 A.3d 1229
| Me. | 2018Background
- DHHS took custody of two older children in July 2016 and a jeopardy finding was entered in February 2017 based on the parents' untreated mental-health issues, the father’s history of violence and criminal activity, and the mother’s pattern of choosing unsafe partners.
- Court-ordered services included mental-health evaluations, compliance with evaluator recommendations, and the father’s participation in a batterers intervention program (BIP); both parents had inconsistent engagement in treatment.
- Both parents had recent positive tests for illegal substances; the newborn (a separate matter) showed neonatal abstinence and meconium positive for cocaine.
- The father has a lengthy criminal history including domestic-violence and drug convictions; he gave inconsistent statements about substance abuse and domestic violence during a BIP assessment.
- After a three-day termination hearing in March 2018, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent was unwilling or unable to protect the children or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs, and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports statutory grounds for parental unfitness under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(ii) | Parents argued recent progress in treatment made findings of unfitness unsupported | DHHS argued inconsistent treatment engagement, ongoing substance use, criminal activity, and delayed BIP enrollment showed unfitness unlikely to be remedied in a timely way | Court affirmed: competent evidence supported findings of parental unfitness |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Parents argued the court failed to adequately explain best-interest finding given parental progress | DHHS argued the children cannot wait an unreasonable time for parents to correct conditions and need permanency via adoption | Court affirmed: termination serves best interests to avoid continued foster-care impermanency |
| Whether trial court clearly erred in weighing progress toward reunification | Parents argued marginal progress meant jeopardy alleviated or imminent | DHHS argued progress was marginal and insufficient to meet children’s needs within reasonable timeframe | Court affirmed: marginal progress insufficient; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court abused discretion in terminating parental rights | Parents argued overall decision was premature or disproportionate | DHHS argued statutory goals promote ending unreasonable delay and enabling adoption | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in ultimate termination decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1 (Me. 2018) (cited for procedural/factual standard and reliance on record)
- In re Child of Amber L., 188 A.3d 876 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for factual findings and parental-unfitness review)
- In re Children of Melissa F., 191 A.3d 348 (Me. 2018) (statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence for termination)
- In re Hope H., 170 A.3d 813 (Me. 2017) (marginal progress toward reunification is insufficient to ameliorate jeopardy)