In re E.L.
2014 ME 87
| Me. | 2014Background
- Father exercised extreme control over family life (isolation, mother required to be submissive, family homeschooled, shared bed), creating an oppressive home environment.
- Father routinely demeaned and threatened the mother (verbal degradation, threats of physical harm) and exposed the children to that conduct.
- Father directly disciplined the children harshly (excessive corporal punishment, one slap while a child slept) and handled firearms recklessly in the home.
- Father opposed medical/dental care; attempted to perform dental work on his daughter, prompting the mother to leave with the children.
- DHHS petitioned for a child protection order; the District Court found the children in circumstances of jeopardy and found an aggravating factor, relieving DHHS of reunification duties. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may rely on past conduct when finding children in circumstances of jeopardy (22 M.R.S. § 4002(6)) | DHHS: Past conduct is relevant to assessing prospective risk of serious harm | Father: Jeopardy must exist at time of hearing; incarceration means no present threat | Court: Jeopardy inquiry is prospective; trial court may consider past conduct to assess future risk and properly relied on historical evidence |
| Whether evidence of psychological abuse and oppressive environment supports finding of an aggravating factor relieving DHHS of reunification duties (22 M.R.S. § 4002(1-B)(A)(1)) | DHHS: Chronic, extreme psychological abuse, direct abuse of children, reckless conduct (loaded gun, attempted dentistry) is "heinous or abhorrent" and supports aggravating factor | Father: Evidence insufficient to show children were sufficiently affected to meet aggravating-factor standard | Court: Record supports finding that chronic, extreme psychological and emotional abuse (including undermining mother–child bond, direct harsh discipline, reckless firearm exposure) is heinous/abhorrent; aggravating factor affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012) (standards for review and reunification obligations)
- In re Tabitha R., 827 A.2d 830 (Me. 2003) (jeopardy inquiry requires consideration of prospective risk)
- In re Rachel J., 804 A.2d 418 (Me. 2002) (historical conduct relevant to risk assessment in child protection)
- In re Kafia M., 742 A.2d 919 (Me. 1999) (evidence of past behavior is probative of future jeopardy)