In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345

Background

Children Caleb and Ayden were removed from mother’s care in Nov. 2013 for neglect related to the mother’s substance abuse; they remained in Department custody for over two years.
Repeated judicial reviews (2014–2016) admitted guardian ad litem (GAL) reports; the same judge who presided over two reviews also presided over the termination hearing.
Department filed termination petitions (Dec. 2015 and Feb. 2016) alleging chronic substance abuse, inconsistent participation in treatment, and permitting unsafe individuals around the children.
At the May 2016 termination hearing the court heard testimony from the mother, service providers, caseworkers, and the GAL; the court largely adopted the Department’s proposed findings and terminated the mother’s parental rights in June 2016.
Court findings (by clear and convincing evidence): chronic substance abuse with relapses and inconsistent treatment compliance; needles found in treatment settings and at home; unsafe individuals present; children experienced disruption and need permanency; adoption was found to be in each child’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court failed to exercise independent judicial judgment by adopting Department’s proposed order	Mother: adoption of Dept. draft shows lack of independent judicial function	Dept.: draft orders can aid factfinding; judge’s additions show independent judgment	Court: adoption not verbatim, judge made substantive edits; independent judgment exercised (but parent must first move under Rule 52(b) before appeal in future)
Whether reliance on previously admitted GAL reports violated mother’s due process / was improper hearsay	Mother: GAL reports are hearsay, no cross-examination or rebuttal; court relied on reports the termination judge had not admitted	Dept.: GAL reports are statutorily admissible; prior admission at judicial reviews gave parties due process opportunities	Court: GAL reports are statutorily admissible and judicial reviews afforded due process; judge could only consider GAL reports admitted by that same judge—some prior-report-based findings were unsupported but error was harmless
Whether statutory presumption of parental unfitness (chronic substance abuse) was inapplicable because mother had custody/trial placements during case	Mother: caring for daughter and trial placement of Ayden show she did not meet statutory nine-month inability-to-care threshold	Dept.: mother’s substance abuse was chronic, many services provided, trial placement failed, children could not safely return within reasonable time	Court: statutory presumption applies; mother’s substance abuse was chronic and she failed to rebut presumption
Whether termination was in children’s best interest	Mother: children doing well in foster care; no identified adoptive placements; argues for requiring a “compelling reason” before termination	Dept.: children need permanency after long instability; mother made little progress and exposed children to unsafe individuals	Court: termination was in the best interest of both children; findings supported and no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (discusses use of party-drafted proposed findings and judge’s independent judgment)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (limits trial judge’s consideration of evidence admitted in prior stages to evidence admitted before the same judge)
In re Chelsea C., 884 A.2d 97 (Me. 2005) (statutory admissibility of GAL reports and due process considerations)
Yap v. Vinton, 137 A.3d 194 (Me. 2016) (procedure on challenging a judge’s independent judgment; Rule 52(b) motion requirement)
Guardianship of Hailey M., 140 A.3d 478 (Me. 2016) (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (standards for termination: grounds and best interest; clear and convincing evidence)
In re M.S., 90 A.3d 443 (Me. 2014) (harmless-error standard in termination proceedings)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (discusses when a court must find a compelling reason regarding long-term foster care)
United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994) (judicial notice of matters of record)