In re Child Erica H.
207 A.3d 1197
Me.2019Background
- DHHS filed a petition on Oct. 27, 2017 to terminate Erica H.’s parental rights to her six‑year‑old son; a three‑day bench trial occurred July–Aug. 2018 and judgment was entered Sept. 17, 2018.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Erica could not protect or responsibly parent the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Key factual bases: Erica’s long history with DHHS (involvement since 2004 and three separate child‑protection episodes for this child), significant past substance abuse and unresolved trauma, late engagement in mental‑health treatment, unsafe boundaries at supervised visits, and continued association with unsafe persons.
- The child had experienced multiple placements and had lived with the current foster parents since fall 2016, a period of relatively greater stability; the foster parents recently separated but testified they would try to minimize disruption to the child.
- Post‑judgment, Erica moved to alter/amend, for additional findings, for a new trial, and to reopen the evidence; the court denied the new‑trial and reopen motions and Erica appealed. Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Erica H.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parental unfitness (statutory inability to protect/parent timely) | Erica argued the evidence was insufficient to show she was unfit. | Court relied on long history, late engagement in treatment, unsafe boundaries at visits, and ongoing risky associations. | Affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; statutory standard met. |
| Child's best interest (effect of foster parents’ separation) | Separation undermines stability and thus the best‑interest finding. | Who will adopt is addressed in adoption proceedings; permanence need outweighs foster parents’ separation. | Affirmed: termination serves child’s need for permanency; separation irrelevant to termination. |
| Motion for new trial (newly discovered evidence re: foster conflict) | New conflict between foster parents discovered after trial would change result. | Additional conflict evidence was irrelevant to termination; permanency plan unchanged. | Affirmed denial: no abuse of discretion; new evidence would not affect termination. |
| Motion to reopen evidence (additional facts about foster separation and mother’s improvements) | Court should reopen to hear more on foster home circumstances and any maternal improvements. | Trial record already included testimony and cross‑examination; information was known and largely irrelevant. | Affirmed denial: court did not abuse discretion in declining to reopen. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Jonathan D., 200 A.3d 799 (Me. 2019) (standard for reviewing factual findings supporting termination)
- In re Child of Eric K., 180 A.3d 666 (Me. 2018) (parental unfitness/termination standards)
- In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1 (Me. 2018) (distinguishing termination from adoptive placement questions)
- In re Children of Anthony M., 195 A.3d 1229 (Me. 2018) (standard for best interest review and abuse of discretion)
- In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (longstanding principles on parental unfitness)
- Estate of Fournier, 966 A.2d 885 (Me. 2009) (newly discovered evidence standard for new trial)
- In re Children of Jeremy A., 187 A.3d 602 (Me. 2018) (court discretion to reopen evidence in termination proceedings)
- Light v. D'Amato, 105 A.3d 447 (Me. 2014) (declining to reopen record where parties were aware of the information at trial)