In re Child of Kenneth S., 269 A.3d 242

Child born 2010; father was awarded sole parental rights and primary residence; mother had only supervised contact.
March 2018 welfare check: child reported father dragged him and locked him in a room; father charged (later pled to disorderly conduct); safety plan placed child with maternal grandparents and Department involvement followed.
Father asked Department to take custody after more behavioral incidents; DHHS obtained custody May 15, 2018; agreed jeopardy order entered Aug 16, 2018 (father: threat of physical/emotional harm and deprivation of needed medical care).
DHHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights Dec 4, 2019; five-day consolidated termination hearing occurred in 2021; after the hearing the court requested proposed findings only from DHHS and denied father’s request to submit proposed findings.
Trial court terminated both parents’ rights (June 14, 2021), finding unfitness (inability/unwillingness to protect or take responsibility in a time to meet child’s needs) and that termination served the child’s best interest; father appealed raising due process and ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court allowed only DHHS to submit proposed findings — Due Process	Father: denying him the chance to submit proposed findings (or closing) violated due process and risked biased decision	DHHS: father had full notice, five-day hearing, ability to present evidence; any error was harmless and court exercised independent judgment	Court: procedural error (should have allowed equal submissions) but no prejudice shown; termination affirmed
Trial court language shifted burden of proof	Father: some language in order impermissibly shifted burden to him	DHHS: overall decision shows burden remained on DHHS to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence	Court: claim unpersuasive; burden properly remained on DHHS
Ineffective assistance re: agreed jeopardy order and counsel’s failure to timely challenge it	Father: first counsel failed to delete adverse agreed findings in jeopardy order; subsequent counsel failed to timely raise ineffective-assistance claims, prejudicing termination	DHHS: any error was untimely and not prejudicial because termination rested on extensive trial testimony and events after the jeopardy order	Court: no prejudice under Strickland; ineffective-assistance claim fails

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental-rights termination requires heightened procedural protections)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
In re Alexander D., 716 A.2d 222 (Me. 1998) (due process balancing factors for proceedings affecting parental rights)
In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (procedural due process in termination proceedings)
In re Radience K., 208 A.3d 380 (Me. 2019) (timing and resolution of ineffective‑assistance claims at jeopardy and termination stages)
In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (court should not adopt a party’s proposed findings verbatim; must exercise independent judgment)
In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2018) (due process components required in termination cases)