In re Children of Benjamin W., 216 A.3d 901

April 2018: DHHS filed child protection petition for two children (then ~10 and 4), alleging parental substance use, neglect, dangerous persons in home, and father’s exposure of children to extreme violence; children placed in DHHS custody.
August 2018: Court entered an agreed jeopardy order citing the father’s significant substance abuse and severe violence, including domestic violence against the children’s mother.
Late 2018–March 2019: DHHS petitioned to terminate parental rights; a two-day contested termination hearing was held in March 2019.
The father completed his testimony on day one; on the morning of day two he was arrested at the courthouse after threatening the mother. Defense counsel moved for a continuance; the court denied it, deeming the absence voluntary.
Father did not request alternative participation (telephone/video), leave to keep the record open, augmentation of the record, or make an offer of proof about additional testimony he would have given on day two.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to engage in ordered services, posed a threat to the children’s well‑being, and that termination served the children’s need for permanence and stability; judgment terminating the father’s parental rights was entered and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of father’s motion to continue (for absence after arrest) violated due process	Father (Benjamin W.): arrest rendered absence involuntary; denial deprived him of procedural due process	DHHS/court: father’s conduct caused his absence; he had testified fully on day one, made no request for alternate participation or to keep record open	Court: No due process violation; denial not an abuse of discretion — father had meaningful opportunity and did not seek available remedies
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Father: termination not necessary; challenges best-interest conclusion	DHHS/court: father’s sustained nonengagement, violence, risk to children, and child’s need for permanency support termination	Court: Best-interest determination affirmed as within discretion — termination provides needed permanence and stability

In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (parental absence from hearing due to arrest is not automatically involuntary; court must provide alternative participation upon request to protect due process)
In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2016) (explains due process protections in termination proceedings and standard of review for procedural issues)
In re Kristy Y., 752 A.2d 166 (Me. 2000) (lists due process rights required in termination hearings: notice, opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and impartial factfinder)
Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (emphasizes children’s need for permanence and stability as a central best-interest consideration)
In re Children of Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019) (factual findings on parental unfitness are relevant to best-interest determinations)
In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (when multiple statutory grounds for unfitness are found, appellate court will affirm if any one ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence)