In re Child of Amber D., 226 A.3d 1157

DHHS initiated child-protection proceedings in April 2018 after noting Amber D.’s prior termination of parental rights in 2013, mental-health and cognitive limitations, and her minimization of the father’s pedophilia-related risk.
Amber waived a summary preliminary hearing and agreed to a jeopardy order; the child remained in DHHS custody from shortly after birth.
DHHS filed a petition to terminate Amber’s parental rights on April 9, 2019, alleging little progress in reunification, unstable housing, continued boundary problems with the father, limited understanding of sexual-abuse risk, and a guarded prognosis for change.
At the August 30, 2019 hearing the court found Amber had made some mental-health progress but retained significant cognitive impairment, lacked protective capacity, abused cannabis daily, required continuous prompting to care for the child, and had plateaued in therapy.
The court found the child bonded to foster parents, that Amber was unlikely to achieve sufficient improvement within a time meeting the child’s needs, and terminated Amber’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a),(b)(i),(ii).
Amber appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the parental-unfitness and best-interest findings; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of parental unfitness (inability to protect and parent, unlikely to change in a time meeting child’s needs)	Amber: She completed required services and therefore evidence is insufficient to find unfitness	DHHS: Testimony from therapist, psychologist, caseworkers, supervisors, and GAL showed persistent cognitive limits, lack of protective capacity, cannabis abuse, need for constant prompting, and guarded prognosis	Court: Findings supported by competent evidence; clear-and-convincing standard met; parental-unfitness established
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Amber: Compliance with services and efforts weigh against termination	DHHS: Child’s need for permanency, bond with foster parents, and low likelihood Amber can safely parent in time support termination	Court: No abuse of discretion; termination is in the child’s best interest

In re Child of Sherri Y., 221 A.3d 120 (Me. 2019) (clear-and-convincing requirement for termination)
In re Child of Megan D., 206 A.3d 899 (Me. 2019) (appellate review of factual findings; competent-evidence standard)
In re Children of Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019) (trial court credibility determinations govern weight of evidence)
In re Children of Anthony M., 195 A.3d 1229 (Me. 2018) (marginal progress and desire to parent insufficient to ameliorate jeopardy)