209 A.3d 757
Me.2019Background
- Child (3½ at case start) removed from home after severe domestic violence by father; child placed with maternal grandparents and later foster parents who plan to adopt.
- Father convicted of felony domestic violence and chose a three-year prison term; has had no contact with child while incarcerated and was not a consistent presence before incarceration.
- Mother exhibited untreated mental-health issues, emotional dysregulation, missed appointments, and disruptive behavior at Family Team Meetings and supervised visits; visits suspended Dec 2017 and not reestablished.
- Mother tested positive for multiple substances in 2017 and failed to complete court-ordered substance-abuse and mental-health programs due to nonparticipation or discharge for missed sessions.
- After ~27 months of Department involvement, neither parent completed reunification plans; court found clear-and-convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents are parentally unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) | State: Parents are unable to protect/take responsibility and failed rehabilitation; termination is in child’s best interest | Raul & Jessie: Department failed to provide required reunification services; thus findings unsupported | Court: Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supports unfitness and best-interest findings |
| Whether Department failed to provide reunification services under 22 M.R.S. § 4041 | Parents: Department did not provide required services, undermining basis for termination | State: Department offered services; parents failed to meaningfully participate | Court: Even if services were lacking, that is only a factor; record shows services were provided and parents did not engage sufficiently |
| Whether mother’s due-process rights were violated when hearing proceeded during her absence after arrest | Mother: Denial of continuance and commencement in her absence deprived her right to respond to evidence | State: Mother had counsel present, could testify later, and did not show prejudice | Court: Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; no due-process violation because she had notice, counsel, chance to be heard, and no shown prejudice |
| Whether incarceration/arrest required special accommodations for participation | Mother: Arrest on way to hearing prevented participation; should have been given meaningful alternative participation | State: Arrest was not a pre-known incarceration; counsel represented her and she later appeared | Court: When incarceration known in advance, accommodations required; here mother’s partial absence was voluntarily occasioned and her attorney participated, so proceeding was acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Adam E., 197 A.3d 527 (Me. 2018) (standard for review and sufficiency of findings)
- In re Henry B., 159 A.3d 824 (Me. 2017) (clear-and-convincing evidence supports parental-unfitness findings)
- In re Arturo G., 175 A.3d 91 (Me. 2017) (review of continuance rulings when due process implicated)
- In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2018) (due process requirements in termination proceedings)
- In re Child of Tanya C., 198 A.3d 777 (Me. 2018) (notice and opportunity to be heard may satisfy due process without physical presence)
- In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (procedures when parent fails to appear and when incarceration is known)
- In re Kaylianna C., 166 A.3d 976 (Me. 2017) (prejudice required to overturn termination for absence at hearing)
- Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450 (Me. 1986) (proceeding in parent’s absence may be permissible under certain circumstances)