In re Child of Shem A., 232 A.3d 236

In July 2018 the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) removed six children (ages 2–12) from Shem A. and the mother after reports and observations of severe neglect, chronic lack of supervision, and unsanitary, unsafe home conditions; the children had prior removals in Illinois and Missouri.
A preliminary protection order placed the children in DHHS custody; in October 2018 the parents entered an agreed jeopardy order noting chronic unsupervision and an unsafe home.
DHHS petitioned in April 2019 to terminate both parents’ rights; a three-day contested hearing occurred in July–August 2019.
The District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit: the mother denied or minimized the harms to the children; the father lacked accountability and failed to make meaningful changes; both resisted or minimally engaged in services over a 13‑month period.
The court found termination was in the children’s best interests (children were comfortable and supported in a relative placement) and entered judgment terminating both parents’ rights.
Both parents appealed (challenging sufficiency of evidence for unfitness; father also challenged the best‑interest finding). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness (22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b))	Parents: evidence insufficient; raised due process/equal protection labels	DHHS: record (evaluator, GAL, history, service non‑engagement, unsafe conditions) supports clear and convincing findings	Affirmed — factual findings not clearly erroneous; evidence supported unfitness by clear and convincing standard
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	Father: termination not in children’s best interests	DHHS: best‑interest proof (children stable in relative placement, counseling reports, parents’ unfitness) supports termination	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in concluding termination served children’s best interests
Due process claim re: adoption of evaluator’s conclusions	Parents: court improperly adopted evaluator’s conclusions	DHHS: court independently applied judgment to full record	Rejected — court applied independent judgment and distinguished evaluator’s statements from its findings

In re Children of Benjamin W., 216 A.3d 901 (Me. 2019) (supports linking parental unfitness findings to best‑interest analysis)
In re Child of Christine M., 194 A.3d 390 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for factual findings of parental unfitness)
In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (explains review when trial proof is by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Children of Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019) (standards for reviewing best‑interest findings and abuse of discretion review)
In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (court must apply independent judgment to evaluator evidence)