In re Child of Domenick B., 197 A.3d 1076

Child born December 2013; maternal grandparents brought the child to Maine and cared for her; father joined them; mother returned from incarceration in 2015.
After the mother’s return, father was arrested for assaulting the mother with the child present; DHHS filed a child protection petition and a jeopardy order placed the child with maternal grandparents.
Jeopardy order required father to complete substance abuse evaluation/treatment, individual therapy for trauma and anger, random drug screening, and abstain from nonprescribed mood‑altering substances.
Father participated successfully in methadone treatment for opioids but repeatedly tested positive for alcohol; he was warned alcohol use endangered reunification and failed two alcohol screens including one the week before the termination hearing.
Father began but inconsistently attended and then discontinued mental health/anger‑management therapy in October 2017; DHHS filed to terminate his parental rights in November 2017.
After a two‑day hearing, the District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that father could not protect the child from jeopardy or assume responsibility within a timeframe meeting the child’s needs and terminated his parental rights; mother consented to termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness (inability to protect child or assume responsibility within a reasonable time)	DHHS: father failed to remedy jeopardy—continued alcohol use and incomplete mental‑health treatment	Father: insufficient evidence to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence	Court: affirmed; competent evidence showed failed sobriety re alcohol and inconsistent/abandoned therapy, supporting unfitness finding
Whether termination (vs. permanency guardianship) was in the child’s best interest	DHHS/guardian ad litem: termination gives child stable, permanent placement with grandparents	Father: requested permanency guardianship to preserve legal relationship and potential contact	Court: abused discretion not shown; considered guardianship and denied it due to strained relationship between father and grandparents and child’s need for permanency; termination affirmed

In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1 (2018) (standard for drawing facts from the court record)
In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (2004) (parental unfitness and reasonable‑time standard)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (2012) (appellate review of findings supported by competent evidence)
In re Haylie W., 167 A.3d 576 (2017) (deference to trial court on best‑interest/permanency decisions)
In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (2017) (permanency guardianship purpose and factors)
In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (2002) (court discretion on permanency planning)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (2001) (best‑interest requirement after a finding of parental unfitness)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (2005) (affirming termination where permanency favored termination over guardianship)