In re D.P.
2013 ME 40
| Me. | 2013Background
- DHHS filed a child protection petition in Aug 2011 alleging jeopardy due to parents' drug abuse, mother's claimed inability to care for D.P., and father's physical abuse in D.P.'s presence.
- Initial order removed custody from the parents and placed D.P. with relatives; jeopardy hearing was continued in 2012 due to new sexual abuse allegations by both parents.
- In March 2012 the mother petitioned to terminate her own parental rights without a jeopardy hearing, claiming §4052(1) authorized this and asserting a right to unilateral termination.
- The Department opposed termination without jeopardy, sought a jeopardy determination on sexual abuse, and the court dismissed the petition.
- The Department amended the petition to include sexual abuse as an aggravating factor and sought a cease reunification order; a jeopardy hearing was held in April 2012.
- The jeopardy order found jeopardy as to both parents based on domestic violence, abandonment, and sexual abuse; the mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §4052(1) authorize a noncustodial parent to petition to terminate own rights? | Mother contends she may petition to terminate without jeopardy hearing. | Department argues only custodians or the Department may petition; mother not authorized. | No; statute does not authorize. |
| If §4052(1) does not authorize termination, does the statute violate due process? | Termination right without jeopardy hearing is required by due process. | Statute rationally furthers child protection interests; no due process violation. | No due process violation; rational basis upheld. |
| If §4052(1) does not authorize termination, does the statute violate equal protection? | Mother is similarly situated to a surrender in adoption and thus entitled to equal treatment. | Not similarly situated; adoption surrenders involve different parties and contexts; rational basis supported. | No equal protection violation; rational basis upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrier v. Sec’y of State, 2012 ME 142 (2012) (statutory interpretation; give words meaning; rational basis review framework)
- In re Richard G., 2001 ME 78 (2001) (due process in child protection contexts; parental rights not absolute)
- In re A.M., 2012 ME 118 (2012) (parental fundamental rights; balancing state interests)
- State v. Dee, 2012 ME 26 (2012) (due process and reasonableness standards in state actions)
- MacImage of Maine, LLC v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2012 ME 44 (2012) (equal protection; rational basis review; similarly situated analysis)