In re Child Megan D.
206 A.3d 899
| Me. | 2019Background
- Child born September 1, 2016; mother used heroin during pregnancy and child was born drug-affected.
- Child placed in foster care September 23, 2016 after mother left a residential treatment program; has not been in mother’s care since.
- DHHS filed petition to terminate parental rights on February 1, 2018; termination hearing held July 24, 2018; judgment terminating mother’s rights entered August 20, 2018 under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii).
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother was unable or unwilling to protect the child or take responsibility within a timeframe reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Court relied on mother’s inconsistent contact with DHHS, lack of safe/permanent housing, incomplete/restarted treatment and services, and that the child had been in foster care 22 of 23 months.
- Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of parental unfitness and best interest; she also raised a due-process claim about reunification efforts that was not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding parental unfitness under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) | Mother: evidence insufficient; she has made substantial recovery efforts and connections | DHHS: mother still unable to protect child or assume responsibility within a reasonable time; child needs permanency now | Affirmed — competent evidence supports unfitness finding |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) | Mother: termination not warranted given progress | DHHS: long foster placement and continued risk justify termination for child’s permanency | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether mother was denied due process by inadequate reunification efforts | Mother: DHHS failed to provide adequate reunification/rehabilitative services | DHHS: procedural default at trial; merits not addressed on appeal | Not reached — claim waived for failure to raise in trial court |
| Standard of review for termination findings | Mother: challenges factual sufficiency | DHHS: deference to trial court credibility and factual findings | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard for findings and abuse-of-discretion for best-interest conclusion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Portia L., 183 A.3d 747 (Me. 2018) (standard for best-interest review in termination cases)
- In re Children of Corey W., 199 A.3d 683 (Me. 2019) (affirmance possible if any alternative statutory basis is proven)
- In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (trial court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility in child-protection matters)
- Gordon v. Cheskin, 82 A.3d 1221 (Me. 2013) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (substantial deference afforded trial court in termination decisions)
- In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2018) (failure to preserve constitutional challenge below bars appellate review)
- In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (preservation requirement for appellate consideration of trial-phase issues)