In re Child Peter T.
207 A.3d 183
| Me. | 2019Background
- DHHS filed a child protection petition in April 2016 after the father was convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a child under 12; the child was placed in DHHS custody and a jeopardy finding issued.
- Court-ordered services and supervised visitation were imposed; multiple judicial review hearings continued the jeopardy order.
- At a January 2018 contested judicial review, the court found the father minimized the sexual assault (calling it "accidental") and remained a danger despite years of sex-offender therapy. Jeopardy was found to continue.
- DHHS petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights in March 2018; at the August 2018 consolidated hearing the father conceded jeopardy remained and asked for six more months to attempt therapy and a trial placement.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was parentally unfit (could not protect the child or assume responsibility within a reasonable time) and that terminating his rights was in the child’s best interest to achieve permanency. The court entered judgment terminating paternal rights and set adoption as the permanency plan; the father appealed only the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in child's best interest | Father: removing him would cause further trauma; termination not justified without compelling circumstances | DHHS/Court: ongoing jeopardy, lack of rehabilitation, and prolonged foster care militate for permanency | Court: Affirmed—termination is in child’s best interest to secure timely permanency |
| Whether delay proposed by father would be reasonable | Father: six months plus trial placement could allow reunification | Court/DHHS: proposal would likely add ~1 year of delay for a child nearly half her life in custody | Court: Delay is unreasonable given lack of progress and statutory aim of avoiding prolonged foster care |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Children of Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019) (standard of review and interplay between parental unfitness and best-interest analysis)
- In re Child of Jonathan D., 200 A.3d 799 (Me. 2019) (support for record-evidence standard in termination judgments)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (best-interest determination must consider congruence with prior judicial decisions)
- In re Children of Anthony M., 195 A.3d 1229 (Me. 2018) (timeliness and reasonable timeframe for reunification are relevant to parental fitness and permanency decisions)