In re Children of Danielle F., 207 A.3d 1193

Mother Danielle F. had a young child who had been largely in Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) custody; the child had experienced multiple placements and disruptions.
Over ~2 years the mother struggled with substance use (marijuana and other drugs), unstable housing, mental-health and domestic-violence issues, and repeatedly violated services and group-home rules.
Mother repeatedly concealed contact with the child’s father (who had his own parenting problems); she maintained unsafe relationships that endangered reunification efforts.
The District Court found mother’s reunification efforts were "poor" to "fair," that she was unable to protect or responsibly parent the child within a reasonable time, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Mother was absent when the termination hearing commenced but was represented by counsel; she timely appealed the termination judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DHHS)	Held
Whether proceeding with the termination hearing in mother’s physical absence violated due process	Mother: Court should not have begun the hearing while she was absent though expected to arrive later; this deprived her of presence at critical proceedings	DHHS: Mother had counsel, who could examine witnesses and present evidence; notice was adequate and opportunity to be heard existed	Court: No due-process violation; proceeding without her was permissible because she had notice and the opportunity to be heard through counsel
Whether the court abused discretion by terminating parental rights instead of ordering a permanency guardianship	Mother: Permanency guardianship was a less drastic, available alternative to preserve parental rights	DHHS: Grandparents were not willing to accept guardianship; GAL recommended against it; child needs immediate permanency	Court: No abuse of discretion; termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was in the child’s best interest

In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2018) (due-process protections required in termination proceedings)
In re Child of Tanya C., 198 A.3d 777 (Me. 2018) (physical presence not required if notice and opportunity to be heard exist)
In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2016) (parent’s counsel may present evidence and examine witnesses in termination proceedings)
In re G.W., 86 A.3d 1228 (Me. 2014) (appellate burden to show how absence affected outcome)
In re Child of Domenick B., 197 A.3d 1076 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for permanency guardianship decisions is abuse of discretion)
In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (termination requires at least one ground of unfitness and a best-interest finding by clear and convincing evidence)
In re David W., 8 A.3d 673 (Me. 2010) (courts may prefer termination over guardianship when child needs immediate permanency)
In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (trial court’s best-interest determinations entitled to deference)