In re Child of Stephen E., 186 A.3d 134

Mother moved from New York to Maine in July 2016 with the child; Maine DHHS opened a protection investigation after New York authorities notified them of an open case.
In August 2016 DHHS placed the child in protective custody and the court found jeopardy in January 2017 after a contested hearing, finding the father had subjected the mother (and thus the child) to severe domestic violence and had abandoned the child.
The court relieved DHHS of reunification obligations to the father based on two aggravating factors (abandonment and treatment "heinous and abhorrent to society").
DHHS filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights in July 2017; the father’s counsel moved to withdraw in September 2017 with the court’s leave, and the father did not seek substitute counsel.
The father did not appear at the November 15, 2017 termination hearing (though properly notified), and the court proceeded in his absence, finding by clear and convincing evidence statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
The father appealed only alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s prior withdrawal; he did not challenge the merits of the termination findings.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHS / State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s withdrawal constituted ineffective assistance on direct appeal	Counsel’s withdrawal two months before trial left father unrepresented at the termination hearing, depriving him of the ability to present witnesses, testify, and cross-examine	Withdrawal was court‑authorized; father had time to request replacement counsel, did not, and remained a nonparticipant in the process	No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; judgment affirmed
Whether counsel’s withdrawal was improper under professional conduct rules	Withdrawal violated rules and prejudiced father	Withdrawal was granted for lack of client communication; withdrawal with leave is permissible and not automatically ineffective	Challenge not properly presented and unpersuasive
Whether father was prejudiced by absence of counsel (denial of due process)	Absence of counsel deprived father of a fair adversarial process	Father could have participated pro se or telephonically, failed to request continuance or replacement counsel	No prejudice shown; claim fails
Whether appellate review requires M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) procedure or can proceed on direct appeal	Father framed claim on direct appeal and filed required affidavit	Direct appeal is proper if no new extrinsic facts are required; father supplied affidavit	Direct-review standard applied; father failed to meet burden

In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (standards for claiming ineffective assistance in termination proceedings)
In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (direct appeal v. Rule 60(b) for ineffectiveness claims; affidavit requirement)
In re T.B., 65 A.3d 1282 (Me. 2013) (parent may participate in proceedings without counsel; telephonic participation)
In re Frederick P., 779 A.2d 957 (Me. 2001) (withdrawal by counsel for client noncooperation not per se ineffective)
State v. McLaughlin, 567 A.2d 82 (Me. 1989) (counsel withdrawal principles)