2019 ME 31
Me.2019Background
- DHHS filed for protective order Dec 4, 2017; children placed with mother after allegations of father’s long-term physical and emotional abuse and failure to meet children’s needs.
- January 2018 agreed jeopardy order found father’s unmanaged mental health and domestic violence created serious risk; ordered diagnostic evaluation, dialectical behavior therapy, and medication management.
- Father largely refused services for years; counseling attempts failed (one counselor quit after threatening remarks); father posted threatening commentary and behaved violently in court.
- DHHS petitioned to terminate only the father’s parental rights; mother retained custody throughout.
- At the August 2018 termination hearing father did not testify; court found by clear and convincing evidence father unwilling/unable to protect children, unlikely to change, and failed to make good faith rehabilitation efforts.
- Court concluded termination was in children’s best interests to provide safety, permanency, and stability; father appealed only the best-interests/permanency ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHHS/Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests/permanency | Termination unnecessary because children can remain safely with mother without severing his rights; court should enter parental rights & responsibilities order instead | Father poses a continuing, escalating risk due to refusal to engage in required services; termination is necessary for children’s safety and permanency | Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interests and provides needed permanency |
| Whether evidence supported finding that father unlikely to rehabilitate | Father did not challenge factual findings but implicitly disputes necessity of termination | Record shows long-term refusal to participate, deterioration of mental health, violent/threatening conduct, poor prognosis from evaluator | Court’s findings that father is unlikely to improve and poses extreme risk are supported and pertinent to best-interests analysis |
| Whether terminating one parent’s rights while preserving the other’s is appropriate | Termination of only father is unreasonable where mother can provide custody | Circumstances justified terminating one parent’s rights while preserving the other’s parental rights to protect children | Court did not err; splitting parental rights permissible given evidence of risk from father |
| Standard of review applied to best-interests determination | N/A on appeal (father did not contest findings) | Trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; ultimate best-interest decision reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court applied correct standards and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for best-interest findings)
- In re Child of Mercedes D., 196 A.3d 888 (Me. 2018) (factors to consider in best-interest determination)
- Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (children’s need for permanence and harm from nontermination are relevant)
- In re Ashley A., 679 A.2d 86 (Me. 1996) (parental unfitness findings may inform best-interest analysis)
- In re Child of Emily K., 187 A.3d 595 (Me. 2018) (affirming termination of one parent’s rights while preserving the other’s)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (deference to trial court on best-interest conclusions)