In re B.P., 2015 ME 139

In July 2012, after a domestic assault in the child B.P.’s presence, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) removed one-year-old B.P. from his parents and placed him with maternal great-aunt and uncle; a jeopardy order followed.
DHHS filed to terminate parental rights in July 2013; a multi-day termination trial occurred in late 2014–January 2015 after interim attempts at reunification, including a trial placement with the father.
The father had been ordered to attend counseling and to have no contact with the mother as conditions of reunification; he stopped counseling in August 2014 and repeatedly violated the no-contact order.
The mother had convictions for drug trafficking, domestic violence, and theft, continued untreated substance abuse, and failed to complete required counseling.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that (a) the mother was unwilling/unable to protect B.P., take responsibility, or make a good-faith rehabilitative effort, and (b) the father was unwilling/unable to protect B.P. and was volatile with poor emotional regulation; both findings were supported by evidence of negative effects on B.P. (aggression, property destruction, self-harm tendencies).
The court concluded termination of both parents’ rights was in B.P.’s best interest and entered judgment; the parents appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Parents' Argument	DHHS/Court's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness	Parents argued they were making progress and evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard	Record showed ongoing substance abuse, criminal convictions, violence (mother), counseling withdrawal, no-contact violations, volatility (father), and harm to child	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports unfitness findings for both parents
Whether termination was in child’s best interest	Parents argued permanency should await further progress	DHHS pointed to multi-year harm to child, failed reunification efforts, and availability of adoptive kin caregivers	Affirmed: termination serves B.P.’s best interest given lack of permanence and harm endured
Admissibility or weight of rehabilitative efforts	Parents emphasized some services and a trial placement with father	Court found father sabotaged reunification (stopped counseling, lied about contact); mother failed to engage in treatment	Affirmed: limited/pro forma efforts insufficient to overcome unfitness findings
Application of statutory permanency timeline	Parents urged more time to rehabilitate	DHHS noted statutory preference for permanency and elapsed time in foster care (over 3 years)	Affirmed: statutory policy and elapsed time supported termination decision

In re K.M., 2015 ME 79, 118 A.3d 812 (discussing standards for reviewing termination findings)
In re Marcus S., 2007 ME 24, 916 A.2d 225 (standard for sufficiency of evidence in termination appeals)
In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, 854 A.2d 195 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re D.C., 2015 ME 24, 112 A.3d 938 (affirming unfitness where parent failed to engage in treatment and tested positive for drugs)
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, 889 A.2d 297 (addressing best-interest analysis and permanency focus of child protection law)
In re Jamara R., 2005 ME 45, 870 A.2d 112 (discussing statutory timeframes and permanency concerns)
In re B.C., 2012 ME 140, 58 A.3d 1118 (related discussion of permanency policy)
In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114, 775 A.2d 1144 (remedy where one parent’s erroneous termination compels vacatur of co-parent’s termination)