In re Child of Sherri Y., 221 A.3d 120

DHHS filed a child protection petition after school referrals and the child’s placement with a guardian; the child entered foster care in Dec. 2017.
Mother suffered a 2012 traumatic brain injury, has seizures, mental‑health and substance‑use history, unstable housing, and was the ward of her father.
The maternal grandfather was guardian but lost stable housing and contact with the child; the child is a high‑needs child in therapeutic foster care.
DHHS petitioned to terminate parental rights in Jan. 2019; father consented to termination; one‑day termination hearing held May 14, 2019.
Court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to alleviate jeopardy, was unlikely to be able to care for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that termination was in the child’s best interest; judgment terminating mother’s rights entered and mother appealed.
On appeal mother argued insufficient evidence, and alleged due process violations: court failed to assess competency, should have continued the hearing, and should have appointed a guardian ad litem; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to find parental unfitness and best interest for termination	Mother: evidence did not clearly and convincingly show unfitness or that termination was in child’s best interest	DHHS: court’s factual findings about mother’s injuries, noncompliance with reunification plan, inconsistent visits, and child’s high needs supported findings	Court: findings supported by record; clear and convincing standard met; affirmed termination
Due process — competency inquiry	Mother: court should have inquired into her competency to participate	DHHS: mother never raised competency at trial; record did not show inability to understand or assist counsel	Court: no obvious error; mother understood proceedings; no sua sponte competency inquiry required; claim fails
Due process — refusal to continue hearing	Mother: emotional outbursts and courtroom behavior showed need to postpone	DHHS: intermittent emotional dysregulation ≠ incapacity; court considered and reasonably declined continuance due to scheduling	Court: considering but declining to continue did not violate due process; proceeding was appropriate
Due process — appointment of guardian ad litem	Mother: court should have sua sponte appointed a guardian	DHHS: mother was represented by counsel and no showing GAL was needed; no request made	Court: no requirement to appoint GAL sua sponte where counsel was present and no evidence GAL would aid participation; claim fails

In re Child of Scott A., 213 A.3d 117 (Me. 2019) (procedural/factual support for reviewing termination findings)
In re Child of Rebecca J., 213 A.3d 108 (Me. 2019) (standard for proving grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
In re B.P., 126 A.3d 713 (Me. 2015) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re R.M., 114 A.3d 212 (Me. 2015) (review standard for best‑interest determination)
In re Jason B., 552 A.2d 9 (Me. 1988) (support for termination where evidence shows child’s needs and instability)
In re Breauna N., 742 A.2d 911 (Me. 1999) (court may find factual findings highly probable)
In re David H., 985 A.2d 490 (Me. 2009) (competency inquiry discussion; mental illness does not automatically equal incompetence)
In re H.C., 82 A.3d 80 (Me. 2013) (capacity to consent requires understanding nature and consequences; courts may track prior disclosures)
In re Child of Mercedes D., 196 A.3d 888 (Me. 2018) (limited cognitive functioning distinct from incompetence; counsel’s role and GAL request context)