2018 ME 57
Me.2018Background
- The District Court terminated both parents’ parental rights to their infant daughter under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 after finding them unwilling or unable to protect and provide for the child and unsuccessful at rehabilitation and reunification.
- The Department provided services including safety assessments, rehabilitative planning, supervised visitation, referrals for counseling, medication management, parenting education, parental assessment for the mother, kinship foster placement, and social work services.
- The mother failed to consistently engage in medication management and mental-health counseling, remained withdrawn during visits, declined visits when the father’s visits were suspended, and continued to live with the father despite his violence and intimidation.
- The father failed to complete a court-ordered diagnostic evaluation, was inconsistently engaged in medication and counseling, exhibited aggressive, disruptive, and violent conduct (including an alleged aggravated assault and threats/physical violence toward the mother), and had visits suspended for dangerous conduct.
- The child had lived with maternal grandparents/foster parents since 19 days old; the court found the child needs a calm, permanent home and that parents were not closer to reunification than at case inception.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Department satisfied its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts before TPR | Dept. failed to meet obligations under 22 M.R.S. § 4041(1-A) so unfitness finding improper | Dept. met obligations; TPR warranted | Court: Dept. met its statutory obligations; sufficient evidence of mother’s unfitness (affirmed) |
| Whether evidence supports mothers’ unfitness | She had made sufficient progress; services inadequate | Mother remained unwilling/unable to protect child and failed to rehabilitate | Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence of at least one ground for mother’s unfitness (affirmed) |
| Whether evidence supports father’s unfitness | Father argued progress toward rehabilitation | Father avoided evaluation/treatment, violent and disruptive, failed to rehabilitate | Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence of at least one ground for father’s unfitness (affirmed) |
| Whether termination (vs. permanency guardianship) is in child’s best interest | (Mother did not separately press permanency guardianship) | Father argued permanency guardianship preferable | Court: Given father’s conduct and child’s need for calm, termination with adoption plan was not obvious error (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Haylie W., 167 A.3d 576 (Me. 2017) (standard for TPR findings)
- Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (review standards for TPR factfinding and discretion)
- In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (need for at least one clear-and-convincing ground of unfitness)
- In re Hannah S., 133 A.3d 590 (Me. 2016) (unfitness findings supported by evidence of failure to rehabilitate)
- In re L.T., 120 A.3d 650 (Me. 2015) (obvious-error review when party did not seek alternative relief at trial)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (permanency must fit the child’s circumstances and needs)