In re Children of Anthony N.
207 A.3d 1191
| Me. | 2019Background
- DHHS filed child protection petitions for two children (older in Nov 2016; newborn in Jan 2018) based on the father's history of domestic violence, untreated mental-health issues, and substance use.
- Initial safety plan kept the older child with the parents under supervision; a jeopardy order (Mar 2017) required the father to complete parenting/anger-management counseling and provide contact/residence information.
- The older child entered foster care in June 2017 after placement became unsuitable; the newborn was placed with the same foster family at birth and found in jeopardy in Feb 2018.
- DHHS filed termination petitions for the father (older child petition Jan 2018; younger child petition June 2018); termination hearing was consolidated and held in Aug 2018; the father did not appear at the hearing.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was parentally unfit (including abandonment and failure to rehabilitate), the children were safe and thriving in foster care, and termination of the father’s parental rights served the children’s best interests.
- The father appealed; appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief and the father did not file a supplemental brief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Anthony N.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father is parentally unfit under statutory definitions | Father failed to rehabilitate, abandoned children, unwilling/unable to protect them or assume responsibility | (No briefed argument; father did not appear at trial or on appeal) | Court: Proven by clear and convincing evidence; parental unfitness established |
| Whether termination is in children's best interests | Children are safe, stable together in foster home; termination promotes their welfare | (No contrary argument presented) | Court: Termination is in children's best interests |
| Admissibility/application of abandonment theory not pled in petition | DHHS urged court to treat evidence as if abandonment had been pled under M.R. Civ. P. 15(b) | (No contested argument preserved) | Court: Properly treated as tried by consent; abandonment found |
| Sufficiency of procedural record for appeal (no-merit brief procedure) | Record and findings support termination; appellate counsel reported no meritorious issues | Father did not file supplemental brief | Court: Affirmed; competent evidence supports judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Children of Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019) (standard for findings by clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
- In re M.C., 104 A.3d 139 (Me. 2014) (procedure for appellate counsel filing no-merit brief in termination appeals)
- In re Child of Tanya C., 198 A.3d 777 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for parental-termination judgments)