218 A.3d 247
Me.2019Background
- DHHS filed a child protection petition (May 2018) alleging the father assaulted the mother while she was pregnant, had a history of abusing another child, and refused assessments/treatment; Department sought protection and initially obtained a preliminary order that included a cease-reunification finding based on an aggravating factor.
- At the summary preliminary hearing the father repeatedly treated himself as the child’s parent (including testifying under oath he was the father) and successfully obtained an order requiring DHHS to pursue reunification services.
- At the contested jeopardy hearing (three days) the father belatedly argued parentage had not been adjudicated and therefore the court could not proceed; the court rejected the delay argument, found by a preponderance that he was the biological father and that an aggravating factor existed, and entered a cease-reunification jeopardy order.
- The court ordered genetic testing; results showed a 99.99% probability the father was the child’s biological parent. While the jeopardy appeal was pending, the trial court adjudicated parentage on the basis of the unchallenged genetic report without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- The father appealed two rulings: (1) the jeopardy order (arguing the court could not adjudicate jeopardy absent a prior parentage adjudication and challenging the aggravating-factor finding) and (2) the parentage adjudication (arguing a hearing was required before adjudicating parentage based on genetic results).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may adjudicate jeopardy without prior formal parentage adjudication | Jeopardy hearing should be continued until parentage is established under the MPA | Jeopardy proceedings are not dependent on prior parentage adjudication; court may determine parentage from evidence at jeopardy hearing | Court may proceed; father was judicially estopped from denying parentage given his prior statements and conduct, so denial of continuance was proper |
| Whether court’s finding of aggravating factor was supported | (Challenged) DHHS failed to prove father was a person "responsible for the child" for aggravating-factor purposes | Record contained competent evidence that father abused other child for whom he was responsible; finding supported | Aggravating-factor finding sustained (court applied clear-error review and found ample evidence) |
| Whether father is judicially estopped from denying parentage | Father: cannot be estopped from genetic parentage because statute contemplates scientific proof | DHHS: father repeatedly asserted parent status and obtained benefits; estoppel applies and precludes belated denial | Judicial estoppel applied; father barred from disputing parentage in this proceeding |
| Whether court erred by adjudicating parentage on unchallenged genetic report without a hearing | Father: MPA contemplates admissibility and expert testimony; hearing required to test compliance with statutory criteria | DHHS: MPA allows adjudication on self-authenticating genetic reports unless timely, specific objection is filed; no timely objection here | No hearing required where statutory genetic report is self-authenticating and unchallenged; adjudication without hearing was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel doctrine explained)
- Me. Educ. Ass'n v. Me. Cmty. Coll. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 923 A.2d 914 (application of judicial estoppel principles in Maine)
- Linnehan Leasing v. State Tax Assessor, 898 A.2d 408 (judicial estoppel discussion)
- In re Children of Shirley T., 199 A.3d 221 (appealability of non-Title-22 orders in child-protection context)
- In re Jacob C., 965 A.2d 47 (reviewing Title 19-A adjudications arising in Title 22 proceedings)
- Guardianship of Patricia S., 202 A.3d 532 (statutory interpretation; de novo review)
- Randall v. Conley, 2 A.3d 328 (trial court discretion to decline testimonial hearing)
- Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 179 A.3d 312 (recognizing reliability of genetic proof compared with admissions)
- In re E.L., 96 A.3d 691 (standard of review for aggravating-factor findings)