194 A.3d 390
Me.2018Background
- Ten days after mother Christine M.'s fourth child was born in March 2017, DHHS filed for protective custody alleging substance abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate prenatal care; child was placed in Department custody.
- Mother waived a preliminary hearing; in June 2017 she agreed to a jeopardy order and a reunification plan requiring counseling, drug testing, and visitation.
- After June 2017 the mother ceased counseling (July 2017), missed all drug screens, and last visited the child on August 3, 2017; she did not contact the foster parents for seven months.
- DHHS filed for termination of parental rights in November 2017; after a hearing the District Court found the mother failed to comply with reunification requirements and was unwilling or unable to protect or parent the child within a time meeting the child’s needs.
- The court concluded termination was in the child’s best interest and terminated the mother’s parental rights; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports a statutory finding of parental unfitness | Christine: record does not support finding she is unfit | State/DHHS: mother stopped counseling, drug testing, and visitation as required | Court: affirmed — competent evidence supports unfitness finding |
| Whether termination is in the child's best interest | Christine: termination not shown to be in child’s best interest | DHHS: child needs a permanent home; mother failed to engage | Court: affirmed — no abuse of discretion in best-interest determination |
| Whether DHHS made reasonable, good-faith reunification efforts | Christine: DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts | DHHS: provided services and opportunities; mother failed to follow plan | Court: affirmed — record shows DHHS made good-faith efforts |
| Whether any procedural or factual errors warrant reversal | Christine: challenges factual findings and credibility determinations | DHHS: findings are supported by competent evidence | Court: affirmed — factual findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (describes two-step framework: statutory unfitness finding then best-interest analysis)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (court may affirm termination if any one statutory ground for unfitness is proven)
- In re David G., 659 A.2d 859 (Me. 1995) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence; clear and convincing evidence explained)
- In re Mathew H., 167 A.3d 561 (Me. 2017) (reviews standard for best-interest determination and abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re Sara K., 611 A.2d 71 (Me. 1992) (explains shared responsibilities for reunification and limits on Department’s duty to continue futile efforts)