In re Child of Louise G., 236 A.3d 445

Child entered state involvement after medical providers and school reports showed unmet medical and care needs; an initial 2011 petition was dismissed but a second petition was filed April 2018 leading to a temporary protection order.
After contested hearings (July 2019) a jeopardy order issued and the Department increased mother’s visitation while ordering a diagnostic evaluation and services.
The Department filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights in September 2019; the mother’s counsel moved for and the court appointed a guardian ad litem for the mother due to concerns about her capacity.
At the termination hearing the court found by clear and convincing evidence the mother was unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii): longstanding mental-health disorders (diagnosed paranoid personality disorder and panic disorder), chronic emotional dysregulation, limited child-focused capacity, failure to sustain behavioral change, inconsistent engagement in evaluations and services, and ongoing exposure of the child to unsafe individuals.
The court also found termination was in the child’s best interest: the child had been in foster care about 20 months (14 months with current foster family), was thriving, had formed strong attachments to the foster parents who seek to adopt, and required permanency that reunification was unlikely to provide in a timely manner.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports finding mother is an unfit parent under statutory grounds	Louise argued the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence	State argued chronic mental illness, persistent dysregulation, poor insight, inconsistent service engagement, and exposure of child to unsafe persons demonstrate unfitness	Affirmed — court’s unfitness findings supported by competent, clear-and-convincing evidence
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Louise argued termination was not necessary and reunification should be given more time	State argued child needs immediacy of permanency after long foster placement; child thriving and attached to foster family	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; termination is in child’s best interest

In re Child of Sherri Y., 221 A.3d 120 (Me. 2019) (termination requires clear-and-convincing proof of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest)
In re Child of Rebecca J., 213 A.3d 108 (Me. 2019) (standard of review: best-interest determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings for clear error)
In re Child of Katherine C., 217 A.3d 68 (Me. 2019) (criteria for setting aside parental-unfitness findings: lack of competent evidence or clear misapprehension)
In re Mathew H., 167 A.3d 561 (Me. 2017) (appellate deference to trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments)
In re Child of Kimberlee C., 194 A.3d 925 (Me. 2018) (deference to district court’s superior perspective in weighing evidence)