In re Bradyn B., 168 A.3d 795

Bradyn B., nearly five at hearing, had been in foster care for ~25% of his life and was settled and happy in his current placement.
Parents faced termination under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 for inability/unwillingness to protect and failure to rehabilitate; two-day termination hearing produced clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.
Father: repeated assaults (including mother and paternal grandmother), persistent polysubstance abuse, incomplete batterers’ program, guilty plea to Class C drug furnishing, arrested and incarcerated before hearing which interrupted services and visits, and lack of candor with providers.
Mother: lengthy history of polysubstance abuse during the case, recent alcohol/drug use within months of the hearing, and ongoing relationship with a person who posed risks to her sobriety and the child’s safety.
Over ~15 months of the case, neither parent demonstrated ability or desire to prioritize Bradyn’s safety, permanency, or needs; court found termination in the child’s best interest.

Issue	Parents' Argument	State/Respondent's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that parents are unfit under § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)	Parents: evidence insufficient to prove unfitness	Court: clear and convincing evidence of ongoing substance abuse, violence, failure to rehabilitate, and inability to protect child	Affirmed — findings supported by the record
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest (father challenged discretionary determination)	Father: termination not in Bradyn’s best interest	Court: child’s need for permanency, stability, and competent parenting met in foster placement; parents hadn’t remedied issues	Affirmed — discretionary determination was not an abuse of discretion
Father's due process claim that reunification was impossible due to visitation schedule change	Father: procedural/substantive due process violated because plan became impossible to satisfy	State: issue unpreserved; father agreed visitation issue resolved and incarceration prevented visits	Not addressed on merits — issue unpreserved and waived

In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (standards for termination under § 4055)
In re Gabriel W., 166 A.3d 982 (Me. 2017) (appellate review of factual findings in termination cases)
In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (parental unfitness and best-interest analysis)
In re Hannah S., 133 A.3d 590 (Me. 2016) (termination where parents failed to remediate serious issues)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (factors supporting termination for child’s welfare)
Foster v. Oral Surgery Assocs., P.A., 940 A.2d 1102 (Me. 2008) (preservation of error rules)
In re Zoe M., 853 A.2d 762 (Me. 2004) (procedural issues in termination proceedings)