In re Cameron B.
154 A.3d 1199
| Me. | 2017Background
- In January 2014 DHHS removed Cameron (then 10 months) from his parents due to neglect tied to parental substance abuse; the child was placed with the paternal uncle and his wife.
- The court found both parents in jeopardy and imposed a reunification plan requiring sustained sobriety and random drug testing.
- Parents repeatedly failed to comply with drug-testing requirements and never had a 30-day clean period; DHHS filed a first termination petition in May 2015 which the court denied and afforded more time.
- DHHS filed a second termination petition in January 2016 alleging continued substance abuse, lack of treatment engagement, unstable housing, and minimal progress after the first petition was denied.
- At the April 2016 hearing, DHHS and the guardian ad litem recommended termination (the GAL acknowledged permanency guardianship as possible but noted tension between parents and foster parents).
- The court terminated both parents’ rights in May 2016, finding clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination (rather than permanency guardianship) was in the child’s best interest because adoption would provide needed permanence and stability.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHHS/Guardian Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest vs. ordering a permanency guardianship | Termination unnecessary because child is placed with relatives in same town who support visitation; permanency guardianship would preserve parent–child legal relationship | Child needs adoption-level permanence; parents have not shown capacity or commitment; tensions and uncertainty could destabilize placement | Court affirmed termination as serving child’s best interest and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hannah S., 133 A.3d 590 (Me. 2016) (standard for termination findings)
- In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (requirement that termination be in child’s best interest)
- Guardianship of Hailey M., 140 A.3d 478 (Me. 2016) (review for clear error of factual findings)
- In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (credibility and weight of evidence are for fact-finder)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (best-interest review is abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (deference to trial court’s ability to evaluate witness testimony)