In re Child Danielle F., 207 A.3d 1193

Mother (Danielle F.) appealed a District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to her toddler under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(ii).
Court found by clear and convincing evidence mother unable to protect the child from ongoing jeopardy and unable to accept responsibility; termination was in the child's best interest.
Findings emphasized mother's ongoing substance use, unstable housing, mental health and domestic-violence history, dishonesty about contact with the child's father, and repeated refusals or incomplete participation in services over ~2 years.
The child had been in state custody for most of his life and experienced multiple placements; current placement was pre-adoptive and meeting the child’s needs.
Mother argued on appeal (1) due process violation because the hearing began in her absence though she was en route, and (2) the court should have ordered a permanency guardianship rather than termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proceeding with the termination hearing in mother's absence violated due process	Danielle: court should not have started hearing while she was absent though expected to arrive; her presence was required for fairness	State: mother had notice, was represented by counsel who could examine witnesses and respond; due process does not mandate physical presence if notice and opportunity to be heard exist	Court: no due process violation; hearing could proceed without her because she had notice and opportunity through counsel and failed to show prejudice
Whether court abused discretion by terminating parental rights instead of ordering a permanency guardianship	Danielle: permanency guardianship is an appropriate less drastic alternative to achieve stability	State: grandparents were not willing to accept guardianship; GAL recommended against guardianship; tensions existed; child needed prompt permanency	Court: termination appropriate and in child's best interest; court did not abuse discretion in refusing guardianship

In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2018) (due process requirements in termination proceedings)
In re Child of Tanya C., 198 A.3d 777 (Me. 2018) (physical presence not required if notice and opportunity to be heard provided)
In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2016) (counsel may protect a parent’s opportunity to be heard at termination hearing)
In re G.W., 86 A.3d 1228 (Me. 2014) (appellant must show how absence affected findings to prevail on due process claim)
In re Child of Domenick B., 197 A.3d 1076 (Me. 2018) (standard of review and factors for permanency guardianship vs termination)
In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (court must find parental unfitness and that termination is in child’s best interest)