In re Child of Scott A., 213 A.3d 117

DHHS began involvement in 2004; in March 2017 the child’s older sibling reported parental drug use and drug sales from the home and that the child’s needs were unmet.
The child reported fear of both parents, fear of basement activities, waking "bawling," and exposure to parental drinking and suicidal statements by the mother.
A safety plan placed the child with maternal grandparents; a July 2017 jeopardy and permanency order placed the child in departmental custody and required the father to engage in Department‑approved substance‑abuse and domestic‑violence treatment.
The father refused Department‑approved treatment, tested positive for cocaine twice, and was later stopped in a vehicle containing suspected heroin; he was indicted on federal fentanyl possession and distribution charges and was in custody awaiting trial at the termination hearing.
At the two‑day termination hearing the father invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about the drug charges; the court drew adverse inferences from those invocations and found the father was involved in large‑scale fentanyl trafficking, including at the family home.
The court terminated the father’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)–(ii), (iv), finding he was unwilling or unable to protect the child, failed to rehabilitate, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations violated due process	Scott A. argued the court relied on his silence to find criminal drug involvement, denying a fair hearing and forcing him to choose between defending parental fitness and self‑incrimination	DHHS argued the father had notice, counsel, opportunity to be heard, and that adverse inferences are permitted in civil proceedings	Court held no due process violation; adverse inference under M.R. Evid. 513(b) is permissible and not obvious error
Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness	Father contended findings based on his silence and criminal charges were improper	DHHS pointed to drug history, positive drug tests, refusal of approved treatment, criminal indictment, domestic violence, and inability to parent	Court held termination supported: multiple independent factors (including adverse inferences plus other evidence) met statutory unfitness grounds

In re Child of Shayla S., 207 A.3d 1207 (Me. 2019) (standard for drawing facts from record and reviewing findings)
In re Ryan M., 513 A.2d 837 (Me. 1986) (adverse inference from assertion of privilege is permissible in civil proceedings)
In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2016) (due process protections required at termination hearings)
In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (parental substance abuse relevant to fitness)
In re Arturo G., 175 A.3d 91 (Me. 2017) (affirming termination when statutory grounds are met)
In re K.M., 118 A.3d 812 (Me. 2015) (court may affirm if any one of multiple bases for unfitness is proven)
In re Children of Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019) (standard of review for best‑interest determinations)
In re Cody T., 979 A.2d 81 (Me. 2009) (considerations when parent is incarcerated for parental fitness)