In re D.C., 112 A.3d 938

Background

Three children were removed from the father’s care in September 2011 after incidents involving harm to one child and drug exposure in the home; a jeopardy order was entered in November 2011 with the father's agreement.
DHHS filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights in June 2013; a two-day termination hearing occurred in April 2014.
The court found the father repeatedly used illegal substances (admitting use of bath salts, Dilaudid, morphine, oxycodone), tested positive for various substances, and missed many drug screens from 2012–2014.
The father did not consistently engage in substance-abuse treatment or parenting therapy, failed to maintain stable and safe housing, and at times appeared under the influence during visits (including an arrest while visiting the children).
He obstructed the Department’s efforts by revoking or refusing releases, failing to keep contact, and behaving threateningly toward caseworkers and service providers.
The oldest child was thriving in his current placement and wanted to remain with a caretaker who sought adoption; the two younger children are high-needs and require a consistently sober, stable guardian—criteria the father did not meet.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHS’s Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in finding parental unfitness by relying on older evidence and not on the father’s current fitness evidence	Court relied on evidence only through June 2013 and ignored evidence of fitness at hearing	Court properly considered all evidence and found clear and convincing proof of unfitness based on ongoing substance use, failures to engage in services, unsafe housing, and obstruction	Affirmed: trial court considered and weighed the father’s evidence but found continued unfitness by clear and convincing evidence
Whether statutory grounds for termination were established	Father argued no proven ground of unfitness existed	DHHS argued multiple statutory grounds were met (substance abuse, failure to remedy conditions, inability to parent)	Affirmed: at least one statutory ground established supporting termination
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest	Father contended termination was not necessary given his claimed improvements	DHHS argued termination served the children’s need for stable, sober caregivers, particularly for high-needs younger children	Affirmed: record showed termination was in the children’s best interest
Whether the court properly assessed credibility and evaluated evidence	Father claimed trial court failed to critically evaluate evidence favorable to him	DHHS maintained the court explicitly considered and explained why some of father’s evidence was unreliable	Affirmed: court sufficiently assessed credibility and the evidentiary record supported its findings

Key Cases Cited

In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (standards for parental unfitness and termination)
In re Heather G., 805 A.2d 249 (Me. 2002) (discusses evaluation of evidence supporting fitness claims)
In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (appellate review of trial court factfinding in termination cases)
In re C.P., 67 A.3d 558 (Me. 2013) (best-interest analysis in termination proceedings)