In re Child of Rebecca J., 213 A.3d 108

DHHS filed a child protection petition Aug 18, 2017; the child had been removed and remained in Department custody through judicial review orders. The mother had two prior child-protection cases involving unexplained injuries to older children.
An agreed jeopardy order (Nov 28, 2017) incorporated findings from prior matters: chaotic home, inadequate supervision, unexplained bruising on older children, and ongoing instability.
DHHS petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights July 3, 2018; after a contested hearing the District Court entered judgment terminating her rights Feb 11, 2019. The father consented to termination and is not on appeal.
The court found the mother had completed many requested services (employment, stable housing, parenting DVDs, weekly visits) but did not acknowledge or take responsibility for the injuries to her older children and demonstrated a detached, neglectful parenting style and inability to bond with the child.
The Department conceded it never filed a formal rehabilitation and reunification plan under 22 M.R.S. § 4041, but the court relied on prior jeopardy and review orders, evaluations, and other records to conclude the mother was on notice of the issues preventing reunification.
The court found clear-and-convincing evidence that the mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unable to take responsibility within a reasonable time, and that termination was in the child’s best interest; the mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rebecca)	Defendant's Argument (DHHS)	Held
Whether DHHS’s failure to file a formal rehabilitation/reunification plan under 22 M.R.S. § 4041 precludes termination	Lack of a filed plan deprived Rebecca of required notice and procedures; termination should be barred	§ 4041 noncompliance does not automatically bar termination where parent was otherwise on notice of what needed to be addressed	Court: Noncompliance with § 4041 is not a jurisdictional bar; termination may stand where parent was aware of the issues to be remedied
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child’s best interest	Evidence insufficient because Rebecca completed services and DHHS did not file a reunification plan; she argues services satisfied requirements	Mother failed to acknowledge or take responsibility for prior injuries, showed detached/neglectful parenting and inability to bond; these impediments persisted despite services	Court: Competent record evidence supports findings of unfitness and best-interest termination; judgment affirmed

In re Zianna G., 174 A.3d 889 (Me. 2017) (standards for termination and appellate review)
In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (rehabilitation/reunification plan is the case ‘‘roadmap’’ but lack of strict compliance is not always fatal)
In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (vacatur required only when reunification obligations never communicated to parent)
In re Child of Heather W., 180 A.3d 661 (Me. 2018) (Department compliance with § 4041 is not a factual predicate to termination)
In re Skyler F., 166 A.3d 124 (Me. 2017) (parents may comply superficially yet remain unable to safely parent)
In re Domenick B., 197 A.3d 1076 (Me. 2018) (parent on notice that addressing specific problems was necessary for reunification)