In re Children of Meagan C., 214 A.3d 9

Background

DHHS filed petitions in June 2017 to terminate the parents’ rights to two girls and to terminate the mother’s rights to a boy; hearings were held over three days in Sept. 2018.
The District Court terminated both parents’ rights to the girls and the mother’s rights to the boy, finding by clear and convincing evidence parental unfitness (inability/unwillingness to protect children and to take responsibility) and that termination served the children’s best interests.
Key factual bases: the mother’s ongoing polysubstance abuse, alcohol dependence, dishonesty, lack of mental-health treatment, inability to manage the children’s special needs, and counterproductive supervised visits.
Key factual bases for the father: repeated incarceration, inconsistent engagement with services, relapse while not incarcerated, unstable housing plans, limited parenting/contact since 2014, and insufficient progress likely in the foreseeable future.
The father sought post-judgment relief under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied an extension and later denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion after reviewing affidavits and records.
The parents appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination judgments and affirmed denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion (no hearing required because the proffered affidavits/documents did not establish deficient counsel or prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to find parents unfit	Mother: record lacks support for findings of ongoing substance abuse and unfitness	DHHS: record shows substance abuse, mental-health neglect, failure to parent; father: incarceration, relapses, instability	Court: Findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; parents unfit under §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)
Best interests of the children	Parents: termination abuses discretion because current foster family is not yet willing to adopt; mother: insufficient evidence re: boy	DHHS: children need permanency; foster placements provide stability and meet special needs	Court: Termination is in each child’s best interests; permanency need satisfied even if foster family not pre-adoptive
Rule 60(b)(6) ineffective-assistance claim — timeliness & procedure	Father: counsel failed to call witnesses and introduce documents; requested relief	State/Trial court: motion untimely and proffer insufficient; initial review required and conducted	Court: Father’s motion failed procedural and substantive requirements; affidavits/documents did not show deficient performance or prejudice; denial affirmed
Whether the court abused discretion by denying a hearing on the Rule 60(b)(6) motion	Father: court should have held an evidentiary hearing to develop testimonial record	Trial court/DHHS: court performed prompt preliminary review and found no prima facie showing; hearing unnecessary	Court: No abuse of discretion; preliminary review appropriate and hearing not required given the proffered materials

Key Cases Cited

In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (procedural rules and affidavit requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) ineffective-assistance claims in parental-termination cases)
In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (requirements for presenting extrinsic evidence with a Rule 60(b)(6) motion)
In re Alijah K., 147 A.3d 1159 (Me. 2016) (incarceration does not afford special protection from termination)
In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (permanency may be achieved by means other than adoption; courts must fashion permanency to children’s needs)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (child’s need for permanency can require termination to allow adoption)
In re Child of Radience K., 208 A.3d 380 (Me. 2019) (trial-court discretion in credibility determinations)
In re Children of Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019) (standards for evaluating evidence in termination proceedings)
In re Tyrel L., 172 A.3d 916 (Me. 2017) (consideration of properly presented affidavits in Rule 60(b)(6) context)
In re Children of Jeremy A., 187 A.3d 602 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motions)