In re Child of Dawn B., 210 A.3d 169

Child placed with maternal grandparents at birth; grandparents later unable to care for child and Department assumed custody. Parents never were primary caretakers.
Judicial review and permanency orders kept the child in DHHS custody; parents agreed jeopardy findings describing housing, mental health, substance use, and lack of parenting skills.
DHHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights for failure to engage in rehabilitation/reunification; trial court held a testimonial hearing and terminated both parents’ rights. Resource parents are willing to adopt.
Mother filed a M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek a kinship-placement hearing and to advise her about judicial-review remedies; court denied the motion.
Father appealed the termination judgment arguing insufficient evidence and that more time would allow rehabilitation; court affirmed both the termination and denial of mother's Rule 60 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother established ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced termination by failing to seek a kinship-placement hearing or advise about judicial-review options	Mother: counsel failed to seek hearing on kinship placement and failed to advise her of judicial-review options; had she known she would have sought permanency guardianship with maternal grandparents	DHHS/Court: mother cannot show prejudice because grandparents were unsuitable and unlikely to be granted permanency guardianship or be adoptive placements; mother's additional evidence was insufficient	Denied. Court found mother failed to prove prejudice; record supports grandparents’ unsuitability and that outcome likely would not have changed
Whether evidence was sufficient to terminate father's parental rights	Father: he could parent with more time; keeping child in DHHS custody longer would not harm child	DHHS/Court: father made little/no progress, lacks stable housing, parenting skills, and had little contact with child; child’s need for permanence favors termination	Affirmed. Court found competent evidence of parental unfitness and that termination served child’s best interest

In re Child of Stephen E., 186 A.3d 134 (Me. 2018) (standards for ineffective assistance review in TPR context)
In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (Rule 60(b) affidavit requirements for ineffective-assistance claims)
In re Alexandria C., 152 A.3d 617 (Me. 2016) (standard of review for trial-court findings and Rule 60(b) discretion)
In re Tyrel L., 172 A.3d 916 (Me. 2017) (document signature vs. affidavit formalities)
In re Children of Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019) (child-centered timing for permanence and review of sufficiency/best-interest determinations)
In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal vs. Rule 60 proceedings)
In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (permanency guardianship purpose and limits)
In re Child of Mercedes D., 196 A.3d 888 (Me. 2018) (termination appropriate when parent remains unfit for an unreasonable period from the child’s perspective)