213 A.3d 113
Me.2019Background
- Child was taken into DHHS custody 16 days after birth (Nov 2017) following concerns about father’s substance misuse and untreated mental health issues; child has been in foster care since.
- Father (age 29) has a history of regular marijuana use, episodic alcohol use, limited employment, homelessness, and prior sexual-abuse-related history; completed an outpatient substance program but continued to test positive for marijuana.
- Father admitted ongoing marijuana use close to the termination hearing, failed to engage in ongoing counseling and AA/NA after program completion, and missed several DHHS-ordered drug tests.
- Domestic violence concerns: father grabbed mother’s wrists during an argument; there was a PFA request alleged by the mother; domestic-violence issues were not addressed.
- Guardian ad litem supported termination, citing the child’s bond with foster family, father’s limited progress, ongoing substance/mental-health issues, and the child’s need for prompt permanence.
- District Court terminated father’s parental rights (Feb 27, 2019) finding by clear and convincing evidence that father was unable/unwilling to protect the child or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that termination was in the child’s best interest; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS / GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father is parentally unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) | Father argued his participation was sufficient and no serious harm would come to the child | Father’s progress was marginal; ongoing substance use, untreated mental health, missed testing, and limited treatment support unfitness | Court found father unfit: clear and convincing evidence supports inability/unwillingness to protect or to take responsibility within a time meeting child’s needs |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Father argued he needed little additional time to demonstrate ability to parent | DHHS/GAL argued child, 15 months old and largely in care since 16 days, needed prompt permanence; father would need many months or longer to become appropriate caregiver | Court held termination is in child’s best interest given child’s need for stability and likely prolonged delay from child’s perspective |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Kelcie L., 184 A.3d 387 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for termination and parental-unfitness findings)
- In re Hope H., 170 A.3d 813 (Me. 2017) (marginal progress insufficient to resolve jeopardy)
- In re Children of Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019) (child-centered time frame for assessing parental rehabilitation)
- In re Child of Mercedes D., 196 A.3d 888 (Me. 2018) (termination appropriate where parent remains unfit too long from child’s perspective)
- In re A.H., 77 A.3d 1012 (Me. 2013) (affirmance if any alternative basis of unfitness is supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Alexavier G., 174 A.3d 891 (Me. 2017) (failure to contest alternate findings on appeal constitutes waiver)