In re Child of Emily K.
187 A.3d 595
| Me. | 2018Background
- Child placed in DHHS custody Dec. 2015 after mother threatened suicide in child's presence, had untreated substance abuse and mental-health issues, and lived in unstable, unsafe housing; child placed with paternal grandparents and remained there.
- Jeopardy orders entered against both parents (mother Feb. 2016); mother had inconsistent engagement in mental-health and substance-abuse services, positive drug tests, arrests, and intermittent visitation.
- DHHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in Jan. 2017; court terminated mother’s rights Aug. 2017; mother appealed.
- DHHS later withdrew the termination petition as to the father and the court placed the child in a permanency guardianship with the paternal grandparents (father retained parental rights). Mother moved for relief from judgment and the trial court reopened the record and took additional evidence.
- After additional evidence (Nov. 2017), the court again terminated the mother’s parental rights, finding by clear and convincing evidence that DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, the mother remained unable/unwilling to protect or parent within a timeframe meeting the child’s needs, and termination was in the child’s best interest to provide certainty and closure given the child’s trauma.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHHS/Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly reopened the record after permanency plan changed from adoption to guardianship | Reopening should lead to reconsideration because permanency guardianship (not adoption) and father’s retained rights mean termination is unnecessary | Reopening was appropriate; court should reassess best interest with new evidence | Court properly reopened and took additional evidence before re-deciding best interest |
| Whether termination is appropriate when a permanency guardianship exists and father’s rights remain | Termination unnecessary because guardianship does not require termination and future contact with mother might benefit child if consistent | Termination can still be in child’s best interest despite guardianship; permanency requires certainty given child’s trauma | Termination of mother’s rights affirmed: permanency guardianship does not preclude termination when best interest requires it |
| Whether DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother argued she tried treatments and some success; termination premature | DHHS showed repeated service offers, FTDC referrals, supervised visits, drug screens, and other supports over ~2 years | Court found DHHS made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify |
| Whether mother was unfit / likely to remedy conditions within child’s needs timeframe | Mother contended possibility of future improvement; maintenance of parental rights preserves potential future contact | Evidence showed ongoing substance use, inconsistent treatment/contacts, and child’s ongoing trauma and need for certainty | Court found mother unwilling/unable to protect/parent within a reasonable time and therefore unfit; termination in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aurora M., 177 A.3d 617 (Me. 2018) (standard for review and fact-finding support)
- In re L.T., 120 A.3d 650 (Me. 2015) (permanency guardianship does not preclude termination when best interests require it)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (affirming termination where parent’s behavior threatened permanency and stability)