In re Child of Kaysean M., 2018 ME 156

Father Kaysean M. appealed termination of his parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(iv); mother did not join the appeal.
Father failed to appear at the jeopardy hearing (Sept. 11, 2017) and at the termination hearing (May 7, 2018); he was represented by counsel at both hearings.
Court found father had mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, and criminal-history issues; last contact with DHHS was while incarcerated in May 2017; he sent letters but had no post-release contact and did not engage in reunification efforts.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that father was unwilling/unable to protect and parent the child, failed to make good-faith rehabilitation efforts, and abandoned the child; termination was in the child’s best interest.
Father argued on appeal that (1) notice by publication was defective because record did not show publication once a week for three successive weeks, and (2) the court erred in admitting testimony of a DHHS supervisor.
Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: findings supported by record; publication established by published notices and newspaper affidavit; admission of supervisor testimony did not rise to obvious error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of notice by publication	Publication was defective—record lacks proof that notice ran once a week for three successive weeks under M.R. Civ. P. 4(g)(2)	DHHS/record contains printed notices for three successive weeks and an affidavit from the newspaper clerk confirming publication	Court held publication was legally sufficient; notices and affidavit satisfied the rule
Admission of DHHS supervisor testimony	Trial court should have excluded supervisor's testimony sua sponte; no proper foundation	Testimony was admissible; no foundational error shown	Court applied obvious-error review and held admission did not constitute seriously prejudicial error; evidence admissible under M.R. Evid. 602
Sufficiency of evidence / best-interest finding	(Implicit) Father's absence and letters insufficient to rebut due process or show unfitness not proven by clear and convincing evidence	Trial court relied on evidence across proceedings, father’s nonparticipation, history, and child’s thriving placement	Court found factual findings not clearly erroneous and best-interest conclusion not an abuse of discretion; termination affirmed

In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190 (Me. 2017) (court may consider evidence from earlier stages when same judge presided)
Shultz v. Doeppe, 182 A.3d 1246 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for service of process and due process issues)
Gravison v. Fisher, 134 A.3d 857 (Me. 2016) (obvious-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
In re Child of Portia L., 183 A.3d 747 (Me. 2018) (standards for reviewing termination findings and discretionary best-interest determinations)