2018 ME 157
Me.2018Background
- Father (Adam E.) appealed District Court termination of his parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(ii).
- Mother consented to termination and is not part of the appeal.
- Court found father loves his son but has not cared for him for years; has chronic homelessness, mental health issues, and only recently obtained an apartment.
- Father’s contact was limited to supervised visits (recently three hours Fridays) with inconsistent attendance; he has not participated in services or shown understanding of the child’s significant anxiety and behavioral needs.
- Child has received extensive services and made improvements while in a foster home able to meet his needs; court found adoption would provide permanence, stability, and continued services.
- Trial court concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, father was unable to protect or assume responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to find father unable to protect child or assume responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs | Adam: evidence insufficient to show inability or unreasonable delay; he now can meet child’s needs | DHHS: father’s homelessness, mental health, inconsistent visits, lack of services participation show inability and unreasonable delay | Court: Affirmed; findings supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Adam: termination not shown to be in child’s best interest | DHHS: foster home provides stability, continuity of services, and better prospects for child’s mental health and behavioral improvement | Court: Affirmed; termination is in child’s best interest and district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Portia L., 183 A.3d 747 (Me. 2018) (standard for reviewing termination factfindings and legal conclusions)
- Sullivan v. George, 191 A.3d 1168 (Me. 2018) (clarifies clear-error standard: factual findings are clearly erroneous only if no competent evidence supports them)