In re C.P., 2013 ME 57

Parents appeal a district court judgment terminating their parental rights to two children, C.P. and C.P., under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).
Children were removed on May 26, 2010 due to domestic violence allegations and parental substance abuse; father could not provide suitable placement due to jail, substance abuse, and living with a brother who is a substantiated sex offender.
After a jeopardy finding and multiple reviews, the Department petitioned for termination of parental rights in July 2011 for lack of progress and permanency needs.
A four-day trial in April–May 2012 led to a judgment terminating parental rights on June 14, 2012, with three bases of unfitness found for each parent and a determination that termination served the children's best interests.
The court concluded neither parent could safely care for the children two years after removal, and that adoption, though not perfect, was in the children's best interests.
The guardianship ad litem recommended termination to enable adoption; the children, ages 13 and 10, have significant special needs requiring permanency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the father is unfit to parent	Father failed to protect from jeopardy and meet needs; lacked rehabilitation efforts.	Father engaged in visits and demonstrated some effort; issues may be addressable with rehabilitation.	Unfitness findings supported; father highly probable unable to care safely or rehabilitate timely.
Whether termination was in the children's best interests	Termination necessary to provide permanency and prevent protracted foster care.	Termination would remove parental involvement and risk emotional harm without guaranteed adoption.	Termination in best interests; permanence through adoption favored over long-term foster care.
Whether adoption is a feasible permanency option given uncertain prospects	Adoption may be uncertain but is a viable path to permanence for special-needs children.	Adoption prospects are uncertain; long-term foster care could be more stable.	Court did not err; freeing for adoption was greatly preferable to continued impermanence in foster care.

In re M.B., 2013 ME 46 (Me. 2013) (fitness review standard; emphasis on abuse of discretion in best-interest determinations)
In re David W., 2010 ME 119 (Me. 2010) (permanency and preference for permanence over foster care)
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123 (Me. 2005) (permanency planning and impermanence of long-term foster care)