In re Children of Jason C., 236 A.3d 438

Background

DHHS petitioned in August 2019 to terminate Jason C.’s parental rights to his two children; a one-day hearing occurred on December 4, 2019, and the court entered judgment terminating the father’s rights on December 20, 2019.
The family had long DHHS involvement since 2015 for domestic violence, sexual-assault allegations against the father, homelessness, and failure to protect; the father faced 2017 criminal charges for sexual assault of a child and bail conditions prohibiting contact with minors.
The father delayed and then partially engaged in a Sex Offense Assessment and Treatment Evaluation (SOATE); testing (including LOOK) indicated sexual interest in very young females and recommended further testing (including a sexual-history polygraph) which the father refused to complete.
The father made threats (including a violent household incident with a sledgehammer and a statement about using a “nuclear bomb” against DHHS), resulting in no-trespass orders and the end of supervised visit availability; he had no contact with the children since June 2019.
He did not obtain independent, safe housing for the children, did not complete batterer-intervention or other domestic-violence treatment, and the court found he refused to accept responsibility or make a good-faith effort to reunify.
The children experienced chronic instability (multiple placements and moves); the mother consented to termination separately and is not part of this appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence the father was unfit for failing to make a good-faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify (22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv))	Father repeatedly failed to comply with court-ordered evaluations/treatment, refused key testing, did not secure safe housing, made threats that precluded supervised contact, and therefore did not make a good-faith effort	Record insufficient to show failure to make good-faith efforts; termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence	Affirmed: competent evidence supports finding of unfitness under §4055(b)(iv) (and under alternative §4055(b)(i)-(ii))
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence the father was unwilling or unable to protect the children / take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs (22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii))	Father’s history of violence, untreated mental-health/sexual-offense concerns, noncompliance with services, lack of housing, and loss of supervised visit access establish unwillingness/unability and unlikely change in time	Father does not contest these findings on appeal (argues generally insufficiency)	Affirmed: record supports findings of unwillingness/unability and unlikely change
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests absent identified adoptive homes (22 M.R.S. §4055(1)(B)(2)(a))	Termination is necessary to achieve permanency and stability given the children’s chronic instability and the father’s inability to remediate	Termination cannot be in best interests as a matter of law without identified adoptive placements	Affirmed: identification of adoptive homes is not required; termination found to promote permanency and stability

Key Cases Cited

In re Child of Carl D., 207 A.3d 1202 (Me. 2019) (standard of review and deference to trial court’s best-interest findings)
In re Olivia F., 217 A.3d 1106 (Me. 2019) (affirmance possible where record supports clear and convincing evidence; only one statutory ground needed)
In re Children of Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019) (time for parental remediation must be assessed from the child’s perspective)
In re Children of Meagan C., 214 A.3d 9 (Me. 2019) (court need not identify adoptive placements before finding termination is in child’s best interest)
In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (discussion of best-interest analysis supporting termination)