In re C.P.
132 A.3d 174
| Me. | 2016Background
- DHHS removed two young sisters from parents after mother’s relapse and unstable living conditions; father was incarcerated and conceded parental unfitness.
- Children were placed in foster care; DHHS later petitioned to terminate both parents’ parental rights and identified a potential adoptive home.
- Parents sought placement with paternal grandparents and requested permanency guardianship; court held hearings in Aug. and Nov. 2014.
- After the November hearing, the trial judge asked the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) to draft Proposed orders; the judge signed a termination order drafted by the AAG and resigned the next day.
- Successor judge reviewed the full record (transcripts/audio), denied motions for new trial, granted supplemental findings, and entered an amended judgment reaffirming termination and declining permanency guardianship with grandparents.
- Trial court found grandparents had mental-health, marital, boundary, licensing, and financial issues that risked the children’s safety and stability; adoption was found to better promote permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court’s use of an AAG-drafted order violated parents’ due process | Parents: adoption of AAG draft verbatim shows lack of independent judicial judgment and denied procedural fairness | DHHS: draft use is permissible; court considered full record and applied independent judgment | Court: No due-process violation; findings supported by record and successor judge’s review minimized any prejudice |
| Whether successor judge erred by ruling on post-judgment motions without a new trial | Parents: successor judge should have held a new trial because original judge resigned right after entry | DHHS: successor judge may decide based on complete record, transcripts, and exhibits | Court: No abuse; successor judge properly reviewed complete record and could resolve motions without new trial |
| Whether termination (freeing for adoption) was contrary to children’s best interests vs. permanency guardianship with grandparents | Parents: grandparents are kin and should be favored for permanency guardianship to preserve family ties | DHHS: grandparents pose risks (mental health, marital discord, boundary issues, unlicensed, financial instability); adoption better ensures stability | Court: Termination affirmed; evidence supported finding that grandparents could jeopardize safety and adoption was in children’s best interests |
| Whether amended findings conflicted impermissibly with earlier placement findings | Parents: later findings contradict August 2014 placement hearing conclusions favoring relatives | DHHS: additional evidence (development of adoptive relationship, further info about grandparents) justified different findings | Court: No conflict; additional record evidence warranted different findings and final decision promoting permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alexander D., 716 A.2d 222 (Me. 1998) (due-process balancing for termination of parental rights)
- In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (court may use party-drafted findings if court applies independent judgment)
- In re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983) (trial court must perform judicial function; findings must show factual basis)
- In re Allison H., 740 A.2d 997 (Me. 1999) (upholding party-drafted judgment consistent with court’s oral findings)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (appellate review: factual findings for best interest; ultimate best-interest decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Burrow v. Burrow, 100 A.3d 1104 (Me. 2014) (remand and successor judge fact-finding discretion after judge retirement)