171 A.3d 1149
Me.2017Background
- Damein F., born July 13, 2014, was placed in State custody after a child protection petition on November 5, 2014.
- Father was incarcerated for about the first year of Damein’s life for a 2014 crime spree; released July 14, 2015 under CODVC with probation and a jeopardy order.
- The Department provided reunification services (visitation, drug screens, psychological assessment, planned trial placement); father participated and had substantial sobriety while in CODVC.
- Father experienced two psychiatric hospitalizations (May and July 2016) soon after overnight visits with Damein, demonstrating instability when facing reunification stressors.
- The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights on July 12, 2016; the GAL recommended termination, citing foster family as child’s de facto family and potential harm from removal.
- The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, father unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (unable to protect child from jeopardy and unable to take responsibility within a reasonable time) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department/Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support termination for parental unfitness | Evidence was insufficient to prove unfitness by clear and convincing proof | Record shows psychiatric hospitalizations, risk upon CODVC exit, harmful relationship with mother, and child’s attachment to foster family—supporting statutory grounds of unfitness | Affirmed: findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination in child’s best interest |
| Delay in appointment of counsel — prejudice claim | Father claims prejudice because counsel appointed eight months after child entered custody | Paternity not established until ~one year; counsel was appointed within a week of motion and when legally required | Affirmed: father was appointed counsel when legally entitled; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (standard: termination requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of unfitness and that termination is in child’s best interest)
- In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (quoted standard for termination burden)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (discusses unfitness findings and timing relative to child’s needs)