207 A.3d 1202
Me.2019Background
- DHHS removed the child in Sept 2016 after allegations the mother exposed the child to unsafe individuals and violence; a jeopardy order issued in Dec 2016 and custody remained with DHHS.
- Two petitions for termination: first filed Aug 2017 and withdrawn during a trial placement with the father; second filed May 30, 2018 after removal and placement in residential treatment.
- Over ~25 months the child experienced about 19 placements, multiple hospital/crisis stays, and has significant behavioral, developmental, and educational needs requiring ongoing therapeutic services.
- Parents each had two trial placements that failed. Mother has long-standing substance use and mental health problems (including inconsistent sobriety and positive tests); father has alcohol problems, inconsistent involvement, unstable housing, and an April 2018 incident that ended his second trial placement.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence parents were unwilling or unable to protect or parent the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and that termination was in the child’s best interest; judgment terminating parental rights was entered and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father was unfit / unable to protect or assume responsibility within a reasonable time under 22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) | Father: insufficient evidence; court miscalculated reasonable timeframe | N/A (father-specific issue) | Court: substantial competent evidence supports finding father presently unfit and unable to meet child’s needs within a child-centered reasonable timeframe; finding affirmed. |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest given child’s special needs and potential adoption difficulty | Father: termination not in child’s best interest; parents willing to provide loving permanent home; adoption may be unlikely | Mother: same; also argued APPLA was an available permanency alternative | Court: need for permanency outweighs parents’ desires; termination in child’s best interest; APPLA not available (child <14). |
| Whether long-term foster care or uncertain adoptive prospects preclude termination | Both parents: long-term foster care or difficulty of adoption counsel against termination | DHHS: permanency is statutory priority; continued foster care is impermanent and harmful | Court: long-term foster care disfavored; even if adoption is uncertain, termination appropriate to secure permanency. |
| Whether trial court erred in weighing retrospective evidence to make prospective fitness/time assessment | Father: court erred in using past evidence to predict future ability within timeframe | DHHS: retrospective evidence is appropriate to assess prospective fitness | Court: affirmed that retrospective evidence is proper and court did not clearly err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of Hailey M., 140 A.3d 478 (Me. 2016) (standards for appellate review of fact findings)
- In re Child of Ronald W., 190 A.3d 1029 (Me. 2018) (termination/unfitness standards)
- In re R.M., 114 A.3d 212 (Me. 2015) (deference to trial court on best-interest determination)
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (trial court’s assessment of witness credibility on best interest)
- In re Charles G., 763 A.2d 1163 (Me. 2001) (retrospective evidence may inform prospective unfitness assessment)
- In re Jamara R., 870 A.2d 112 (Me. 2005) (statutory ‘‘clock’’ and child-centered reasonable timeframe for permanency)
- In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012) (clarifying aspects of prior termination jurisprudence)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (permanency principle: long-term foster care disfavored)
- In re C.P., 67 A.3d 558 (Me. 2013) (termination may be appropriate even if adoption is less certain)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (permanency must be fashioned from child’s needs)