In re Arturo G., 175 A.3d 91

Child (Arturo), ~2.5 yrs old, lived with multiple caregivers; parents have significant substance-abuse and incarceration histories. Department filed child-protection petition when child was two weeks old. Jeopardy orders entered for both parents requiring random hair and urine drug testing and treatment facilitation.
Department filed petition to terminate parental rights on August 11, 2016; termination hearing held May 8–9, 2017. Jeopardy order for mother contained explicit provision that, upon Department request, test results would be admissible.
Father moved to continue the hearing on morning of trial claiming Suboxone withdrawal (alleging Department withheld payments pending release of treatment records). Court denied the continuance; 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 hearsay; court overruled, applying the jeopardy-order admissibility provision broadly.
Trial court found both parents unwilling/unable to protect or take responsibility for the child within a timeframe meeting the child’s needs and, as to father, that he failed to make a good-faith effort to reunify; termination ordered and appealed by both parents.

Issue	Parent's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of father's unfitness	Father: evidence insufficient to support clear-and-convincing finding of unfitness	Dept.: record shows repeated noncompliance with testing, delayed treatment enrollment, dishonesty—supports unfitness	Affirmed: trial court rationally could find clear-and-convincing evidence of unfitness
Denial of continuance for father's alleged Suboxone withdrawal (due process)	Father: denial deprived him of due process because withdrawal impaired participation	Dept.: father had notice, counsel, participated, and received treatment during trial; no prejudice shown	Affirmed: no due-process violation; denial not an abuse of discretion
Admissibility of mother’s drug-test reports (hearsay)	Mother: reports inadmissible hearsay; jeopardy-order provision didn’t cover these tests	Dept.: jeopardy-order admissibility clause constituted waiver of hearsay objections	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in admitting results under jeopardy-order waiver
Best interests determination (only noted)	Parents: (not challenging best-interests on appeal)	Dept.: termination is in child's best interest	Trial court’s best-interest finding stands (not challenged successfully)

In re Higern 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 and assignment of weight)
In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (explaining how parental deficits support unfitness)
In re J.B., 112 A.3d 369 (Me. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review for continuance denials)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (due-process protections required at termination hearings)
In re Kristy Y., 752 A.2d 166 (Me. 2000) (due-process analysis where continuance denied)
State v. Hall, 172 A.3d 467 (Me. 2017) (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1995) (agreements waiving hearsay objections are enforceable)
In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (standard on best-interest determinations)