In re Children of Quincy A., 300 A.3d 832

July 27, 2021: DHHS obtained preliminary protection for two children; jeopardy orders entered in March 2022—mother for substance misuse and staying with father, father for history of domestic violence and denial of that violence.
The children had repeated child-protection involvement; the older child witnessed domestic violence and has been in foster care multiple times.
DHHS filed a petition to terminate both parents’ rights on August 29, 2022; DHHS filed unsigned reunification plans on October 5, 2022 (after the termination petition).
At the termination trial (Dec. 16, 2022 & Jan. 12, 2023) the court found both parents consistently minimized or denied domestic violence, mother denied or minimized substance use impacts, and both had made only marginal progress toward services.
Children were placed with a maternal half-sister and had attained stability there; the court found they needed immediate permanency.
Trial court found both parents unfit (unable/unwilling to protect, take responsibility, and failing good-faith rehabilitation) and concluded termination/adoption was in the children’s best interests; judgment terminating parental rights was entered Feb. 6, 2023 and affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the father was unfit by clear and convincing evidence	Father: court erred; evidence insufficient to show unfitness	DHHS/Court: father denied DV impact, made little progress, failed to protect or take responsibility	Affirmed — competent evidence supports multiple statutory grounds for unfitness
Whether DHHS met its §4041 obligations re: reunification plan	Father: DHHS filed the reunification plan late and unsigned (after termination petition), violating statutory duties	DHHS: plan was provided to father and he understood required steps; failure to file earlier did not solely support unfitness reversal	DHHS’s delay was concerning, but father had notice of required steps; unfitness finding not premised solely on plan noncompliance — affirmed
Whether termination/adoption (vs. permanency guardianship) was in children’s best interests	Parents: court should have chosen permanency guardianship to allow continued parental involvement	DHHS/Court: children needed immediate, certain permanency and adoption best served their needs	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; adoption was a permissible permanency choice and no Rule 52 motion raised to require further findings

In re Child of Rebecca J., 213 A.3d 108 (Me. 2019) (reunification plan is the roadmap and vital to DHHS-parent reunification efforts)
In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (plan establishes benchmarks to assess amelioration of jeopardy)
Adoption by Jessica M., 239 A.3d 633 (Me. 2020) (permanency must be tailored to the child; adoption and guardianship are distinct options)
In re Emma C., 177 A.3d 628 (Me. 2018) (adoption may be required where child’s need for stability outweighs guardianship benefits)
Francoeur v. Berube, 293 A.3d 418 (Me. 2023) (in absence of an R.52 motion, appellate court assumes implicit findings consistent with evidence)
In re Children of Corey W., 199 A.3d 683 (Me. 2019) (lack of insight/progress supports termination when children need immediate certainty)
In re Child of Walter C., 213 A.3d 113 (Me. 2019) (unfitness analysis must consider whether parent can protect child within a timeframe meeting the child’s needs)