2018 ME 146
Me.2018Background
- DHHS removed two children in July 2016; a jeopardy finding was entered in Feb 2017 based on the father’s violence and criminal history, the mother’s pattern of choosing unsafe partners, and both parents’ untreated mental illness. Court-ordered services included mental health evaluations and batterers intervention for the father.
- The parents have substantial prior child-protection involvement and other children in custody of others; both have criminal records and positive drug tests in 2017; the newborn (a third child) had neonatal abstinence syndrome.
- The father delayed meaningful participation in batterers intervention and had inconsistent mental-health treatment; clinicians found both parents still had significant, unresolved problems and lengthy treatment needs.
- The two older children had been in foster care since July 2016 and with their current foster family since November 2016; at termination hearing they were approximately 3 years and 19 months old.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent was unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and to take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHHS/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competent evidence supports parental unfitness under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (unwilling/unable to protect or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet children’s needs) | Parents argued their progress in treatment and desire to parent made the evidence insufficient to support unfitness | DHHS pointed to continued substance use, criminal activity, inconsistent treatment engagement, delayed BIP participation, and unresolved risk that would not be remedied within a reasonable time | Court: Affirmed—competent evidence supports parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the trial court misapplied the legal standard for termination (clear-and-convincing proof; timelines for permanency) | Parents argued timelines and statutory standards were not met and progress showed reunification possible | DHHS argued statutory purposes favor ending unreasonable delays and promoting adoption when parents cannot remedy jeopardy in a reasonable time | Court: No misapplication; statutory purposes (ending unreasonable delay, promoting adoption) supported termination |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Parents argued the court failed to sufficiently explain best-interests finding given parental progress | DHHS argued prolonged foster care and uncertainty justified finding termination served children’s best interests | Court: Affirmed—recorded findings (children’s ages, length in care, ongoing parental deficits, uncertain time to safe return) suffice to show best interests favor termination |
| Whether factual findings were clearly erroneous | Parents claimed findings contradicted evidence of improvement | DHHS relied on clinician testimony and documented incidents (drug tests, criminal history, domestic violence history, BIP delay) | Court: Findings not clearly erroneous; supported by competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Amber L., 188 A.3d 876 (Me. 2018) (standard of review and vacatur standard for parental unfitness findings)
- In re Children of Melissa F., 191 A.3d 348 (Me. 2018) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds)
- In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1 (Me. 2018) (procedural reference for drawing facts from judgment and record)
- In re Hope H., 170 A.3d 813 (Me. 2017) (marginal progress and desire to be a parent insufficient to ameliorate jeopardy)