In re Child of Portia L.
183 A.3d 747
| Me. | 2018Background
- Portia L. appealed a District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),(b)(i)-(ii).
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Portia was unwilling and unable to protect the child from jeopardy and to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
- Key factual findings: mother was homeless, delayed in securing stable housing, and even if housing obtained would require months of inspections and trial placements before reunification could occur.
- The court found credibility problems: mother concealed ongoing contact with the child’s father (a dangerous influence), hid stressors from her counselor, and gave inconsistent accounts about friends/households.
- The child had been in the grandmother’s care about 19 months; the guardian ad litem supported termination and adoption as the permanency plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to find parental unfitness | Portia argued evidence was insufficient to show she was unwilling/unable to protect or care for the child | State argued clear and convincing evidence supported findings of homelessness, unsafe associations, dishonesty to counselors, and inability to remedy jeopardy within a reasonable time | Court held findings supported by competent evidence; no clear error — parental unfitness established |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Portia argued termination was not necessary; she was making progress in services and classes | State argued child needs permanency, stability, and adoption is appropriate given prolonged placement and unresolved risks | Court held termination and adoption as permanency plan were in the child’s best interest and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (standard of review for factual findings in TPR and best-interest determinations)
- In re Anastasia M., 172 A.3d 922 (Me. 2017) (review standard for ultimate best-interest conclusion)
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (supporting authority for termination where reunification not reasonably feasible)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (factors and authority on termination and permanency planning)