In Re David W., 2010 ME 119

David W. is a six-year-old whose mother Shawn consented to foster care arrangements after DHHS determined he was not safe in her care.
DHHS obtained temporary custody via a preliminary protection order and kept David in a therapeutic foster home.
A jeopardy order followed, based on the mother's mental health issues, undisclosed blackouts, domestic-violence history, failure to follow services, and unsanitary living conditions.
Over eight months, David remained in the Department's custody under court orders reflecting the joint agreements of all parties.
DHHS petitioned to terminate parental rights; the mother sought a permanency guardianship with the same maternal aunt and uncle who aspired to adopt.
In December 2009 the court found reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify, and in February 2010 terminated the mother's parental rights, declining a permanency guardianship and concluding adoption was in David's best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of parental rights was proper over permanency guardianship	Department argued for termination to secure adoption; Michaela C. supports permanence via adoption.	Mother argued for permanency guardianship with the same relatives.	Termination adopted; permanency guardianship declined.
Whether the district court properly applied the best interests and permanency principles	Best interests favored permanent adoption rather than impermanent guardianship.	Permanency guardianship could provide a lasting home with relatives and avoid disruption.	Court’s best-interest determination supported adoption and rejected guardianship.

In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002) (strong policy favoring permanency and deference to best-interest findings)
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123 (Me. 2005) (permanency policy guiding guardianship and termination decisions)
In re Marcus S., 2007 ME 24 (Me. 2007) (permanency is dynamic and must fit the child's needs)