In re Child of Gustavus E., 182 A.3d 153

Background

Child-protection and termination proceedings were filed after father’s February 2016 conviction for unlawful sexual contact against a child in his household; father was serving a short sentence and later incarcerated.
Department moved to cease reunification; mother (custodian) and two others petitioned to terminate father's parental rights.
At the April 2017 hearing the court considered evidence of the conviction, father’s treatment in DOC (a six-month cognitive-behavioral program), risk assessments (STATIC-99 earlier; a later dynamic tool showing lower risk), substance-abuse and mental-health history, and the absence of contact between father and the child for over three years.
Court found the father’s conduct “heinous and abhorrent,” identified ongoing jeopardy to the child (sexual-abuse risk, substance abuse, mental health), and concluded jeopardy could not be alleviated within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; father appealed, arguing misapplication of the rebuttable-presumption provision and insufficient evidence of best interest.
After this court’s intervening decision in In re Evelyn A., the trial court reconsidered and issued an amended judgment (Oct. 31, 2017); this appeal challenges the sufficiency of the unfitness and best-interest findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court misapplied the rebuttable-presumption provision in 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A) and thereby shifted the burden to father	Petitioners argue the statute permits an inference of unfitness from the conviction and related facts; the court may draw that inference but still must find unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.	Father argued the presumption was applied to shift burden to him to rebut, contrary to In re Evelyn A.	Court held the court used the statute as a permissive inference, did not shift the burden, and complied with Evelyn A.; no reversible error.
Whether competent evidence supports finding father unfit to parent under § 4055(1)(B)(2)	Petitioners: conviction for sexual abuse of a minor in household, substance abuse, mental-health issues, and lengthy lack of contact support unfitness.	Father: engagement in DOC treatment and a later lower-risk dynamic assessment show progress, undermining unfitness findings.	Court held that, viewing all evidence, there was clear and convincing evidence father was unable to protect the child and unable to parent within a reasonable time.
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Petitioners: child’s primary attachment is to mother; father’s absence >3 years, risk factors, and the stress of later integration support termination.	Father: progress in treatment and lower risk assessment suggest potential for later reunification; termination is premature.	Court held sufficient evidence supported that termination was in the child’s best interest (attachment, prolonged absence, and risk).
Whether the trial court erred by relying on risk-assessment tool changes to discount treatment progress	Petitioners: court permissibly considered limitations and changes in assessment tools and the short, nonadmitting nature of DOC program.	Father: change in assessment tools and post-treatment lower score indicate meaningful risk reduction.	Court held change in tools limited comparability; even crediting some progress, evidence still supported unfitness.

Key Cases Cited

In re Evelyn A., 169 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017) (a § 4055(1-A) presumption is a permissive inference; parent bears no burden to rebut).
In re Addilyn R., 176 A.3d 184 (Me. 2017) (statutory rebuttable presumption operates as permissive inference; court must still place burden of proof on petitioner).
In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for termination findings).
In re Tyrel L., 172 A.3d 916 (Me. 2017) (factors relevant to best-interest analysis, including attachment).
In re Jacob B., 959 A.2d 734 (Me. 2008) (best-interest and unfitness considerations in termination cases).