In re Arturo G.
2017 ME 228
| Me. | 2017Background:
- Child Arturo (2½) placed in Department custody shortly after birth due to both parents’ long histories of substance abuse and the mother’s prior termination of parental rights; jeopardy orders were entered for each parent requiring random hair and urine testing.
- Department filed to terminate both parents’ rights; trial occurred May 8–9, 2017; judgment terminating both parents entered June 12, 2017.
- Father repeatedly refused or evaded drug testing, delayed engagement in treatment (did not enroll until Oct 2016), lacked stable housing, and tested positive at times; court found these facts supported unfitness and failure to make good-faith reunification efforts.
- Father moved to continue the hearing on the morning of trial claiming Suboxone withdrawal after the Department withheld payments pending verification of treatment; the court denied the motion, father received treatment during a break and testified the next day.
- Mother objected to admission of positive drug-test reports from her treatment provider as inadmissible hearsay; the jeopardy order had a provision stating Department-requested test results are admissible; the court admitted the reports under that provision.
- Trial court found parents unwilling or unable to protect and parent the child within a reasonable time (22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i),(ii)) and, as to father, that he failed to make good-faith rehabilitation efforts (id. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv)); termination was found in the child’s best interest (id. §4055(1)(B)(2)(a)).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of father’s parental unfitness | Father: evidence insufficient to show unfitness | DHHS: record contains clear-and-convincing evidence (testing evasion, delayed treatment, unstable housing, dishonesty) | Affirmed — trial court could rationally find clear-and-convincing evidence of unfitness and failure to reunify |
| Denial of continuance for father due to Suboxone withdrawal (due process) | Father: denial deprived him of due process because withdrawal impaired his ability to participate | DHHS: father had notice, counsel, participated, and did not show prejudice; Department had reason to verify treatment before paying | Affirmed — no due-process violation; father participated, received treatment during trial, and did not show how outcome would differ |
| Admissibility of mother’s drug-test reports | Mother: test reports are hearsay and not admissible because the Department did not specifically request those tests | DHHS: jeopardy order, agreed by parties, waived hearsay objections to test results; court should construe order to cover treatment-provider tests | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in applying jeopardy-order admissibility provision to those test results |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Higera N., 2 A.3d 265 (Me. 2010) (standard for appellate review of parental-unfitness findings)
- In re Cameron Z., 150 A.3d 805 (Me. 2016) (deference to trial court’s factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (requirements for explaining how parental deficits support unfitness)
- In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (due-process balancing and procedural protections in termination hearings)
- United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1995) (agreements waiving hearsay objections are enforceable)
- In re Kristy Y., 752 A.2d 166 (Me. 2000) (no due-process violation where represented parent participated and outcome not shown to be prejudiced)