In re B.C.
2012 ME 140
| Me. | 2012Background
- The Department has been involved with the family since 2009 after two older children were removed; the mother consented to termination of parental rights for one child and another child is under guardianship of a paternal relative.
- The mother has attended individual therapy since 2009; in therapy she expressed concerns about her boyfriend’s ability to care for the subject child, and the therapist advised he not be left alone with the child.
- In October 2011, the mother left the eleven-week-old child with her boyfriend; the child was injured when the boyfriend threw him onto a couch, resulting in a traumatic skull fracture and subsequent medical care.
- Emergency responders later observed additional injuries consistent with prior shaking; the child is described as having significant long-term developmental delays and neurological deficits and requiring ongoing medical care.
- The mother minimized the seriousness of the incident, defended the boyfriend’s actions as accidental, and sought to maintain contact with him despite criminal charges and bail restrictions; she previously terminated rights to another child, acknowledging inability to provide extensive medical care.
- The Department petitioned for protective custody; after hearings, the court found jeopardy and an aggravating factor and ordered the Department to cease reunification efforts; the mother appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggravating-factor finding supports a cease reunification order | Mother argues the aggravating factorfinding was insufficient. | Department contends the record supports aggravating conduct by mother. | Aggravating factor supported; jeopardy affirmed; cease reunification not subject to direct appeal. |
| Whether the cease reunification order is reviewable on appeal | Mother argues the cessation should be reviewable as part of the jeopardy order. | Department contends such orders are interlocutory and not appealable. | Cease reunification order is interlocutory and not appealable. |
| Whether the court properly excluded evidence at the hearing | Mother claims the court excluded a witness and related evidence affecting disposition. | Department argues issue not properly preserved for review. | Issue not preserved; no error review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jamara R., 2005 ME 45 (Me. 2005) (aggravating-factor finding supported by record)
- In re Ashley S., 2000 ME 212 (Me. 2000) (aggravating-factor interpretation)
- In re Matthew W., 2006 ME 67 (Me. 2006) (cease reunification generally not reviewable)
- In re Johnna M., 2006 ME 46 (Me. 2006) (review of aggravating-factor sufficiency discussed)
- In re Destiny T., 2009 ME 26 (Me. 2009) (standard of review for jeopardy findings)