In re Child of James R.
182 A.3d 1252
| Me. | 2018Background
- Child born premature and drug-affected in Dec. 2015; placed in DHHS custody at six weeks and has lived with the same foster family since.
- Father had a long history of substance abuse but maintained sobriety since the pregnancy, participated in NA, substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, and worked with a case manager and parenting coach.
- Father progressed in supervised visits to unsupervised contact and was weeks away from a trial placement when, on Jan. 17, 2017, the child was found with bruising to both cheeks while in the father’s sole care.
- A child-abuse clinic (Spurwink) concluded the bruising was most consistent with an inflicted injury (likely a slap/strike); father denied responsibility and offered implausible explanations.
- After the incident, contact was supervised; DHHS continued to offer services but maintained concerns; DHHS filed for termination and sought adoption as permanency.
- The District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that father was unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; father appealed arguing error in unfitness and best-interest findings and denial of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing proof established parental unfitness under §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)–(ii) (unable to protect from jeopardy / meet special needs in reasonable time) | Father: He made progress in services and sobriety; the court erred to find him unfit, especially given his cooperation and visitation history. | DHHS: Expert medical evidence and circumstances of the Jan. 2017 inflicted injury show father remains a danger and cannot safely parent within a reasonable time. | Court: Affirmed—findings supported by competent evidence (expert testimony that injuries were inflicted; father’s implausible explanations); clear-and-convincing standard met. |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Father: Termination premature given his progress and engagement in services. | DHHS: Child is needy, attachment to foster home, and father’s demonstrated inability to provide safe, stable care justify adoption permanency. | Court: Abuse of discretion not shown; termination in child’s best interest given safety concerns and need for permanency. |
| Whether father was denied due process because the Jan. 2017 incident was not adjudicated as jeopardy before termination | Father: The injury was relied on without an earlier adjudication of jeopardy. | DHHS: Incident was adjudicated in a Feb. 2017 judicial review/permanency order referencing Spurwink’s finding; termination petition and hearing afforded full opportunity to litigate. | Court: Held father was not denied due process; incident had been judicially addressed and father had full opportunity to challenge evidence. |
| Whether DHHS’s post-incident changes in reunification efforts denied father due process | Father: DHHS “wrote him off” and curtailed reunification absent a court cease-order. | DHHS: Agency may change plans after review; it continued services and supervised visits; father agreed services were reasonable and did not challenge plan changes. | Court: No due-process violation; record shows DHHS made reasonable efforts and father had opportunity to challenge plan changes. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Evelyn A., 169 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017) (standard for reviewing findings of fact in termination proceedings)
- In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- Adoption of T.D., 87 A.3d 726 (Me. 2014) (on factfinder’s discretion and credibility assessments)
- In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (clarifying standards for proof in jeopardy and termination contexts)
- In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (focus of termination is parent’s present and future ability to provide safe care)