In re Children of Nicole M., 187 A.3d 1

DHHS removed three children in early 2016 after two were diagnosed with failure to thrive; children were placed with their paternal grandmother under a safety plan and later in DHHS custody with continued placement with grandmother.
Both parents have cognitive/learning impairments, limited insight into causes of removal, poor participation in services and medical care, and the court found them unfit by clear and convincing evidence under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b).
The grandmother provided markedly improved care; the children flourished in her home, she advocated for them, and she was willing to adopt or serve as permanency guardian (though DHHS had denied her foster licensing due to concerns about her partner).
DHHS filed to terminate parental rights; the consolidated termination and permanency-planning hearing was held in May 2017. The court terminated both parents’ rights and adopted a permanency plan listing two alternatives: adoption or permanency guardianship with the grandmother.
Parents appealed only the court’s best-interest determination on the ground that approving a permanency guardianship (as an alternative to adoption) is inconsistent with terminating parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court can terminate parental rights while also approving a permanency guardianship as an alternative permanency plan	Parents: Approving a permanency guardianship shows termination is not necessary for the children’s best interests because children could remain with grandmother without terminating rights	DHHS: Termination and a post-termination permanency guardianship are compatible; the court may consider post-termination plans to achieve permanence with the identified guardian	Held: Termination is not incompatible with also approving a permanency guardianship; court may do both in appropriate cases (affirmed)
Whether the permanency-plan order (and the court leaving two alternative plans) undermines or is appealable as part of the termination appeal	Parents: The dual alternative permanency plan undermines the necessity of termination and should defeat the termination order	DHHS: Permanency plans are interlocutory and not directly appealable; the proper question is whether best-interest finding (a predicate to termination) is compatible with the permanency plan	Held: The permanency-plan order itself is interlocutory and not appealable; parents’ narrow challenge fails because the best-interest finding is consistent with preserving placement with grandmother via either plan

In re Dominyk T., 173 A.3d 1065 (Me. 2017) (standard for drawing factual findings from the record)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (permanency planning is part of best-interest analysis in termination cases)
In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (comparison of adoption and permanency guardianship; guardianship can preserve parent contact when rights intact)
In re David W., 8 A.3d 673 (Me. 2010) (central tenet: importance of permanency for children)
In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (adoption often provides permanence and stability)
In re Kenneth S., 157 A.3d 244 (Me. 2017) (court may not designate adoptive party in termination proceeding)
In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (statutory criteria for evaluating a proposed permanency guardian)
In re Haylie W., 167 A.3d 576 (Me. 2017) (parents can petition to modify/terminate a permanency guardianship when rights not terminated)
Guardianship of Anthony J., 980 A.2d 1250 (Me. 2009) (effect of termination on parental support obligations)