In re Eric K.
180 A.3d 666
| Me. | 2018Background
- Father (Eric K.) has a lengthy history of substance abuse and criminal activity, including a federal trafficking conviction and nearly 20 years in federal prison; released shortly before events at issue.
- Child entered Department custody May 2, 2016 and has been in foster care for over half her life, experiencing multiple placements and continuing behavioral challenges; currently making progress in a therapeutic foster placement.
- Father first met the child in late Oct/early Nov 2015, has never lived with her, and has not demonstrated parenting skills; visitation began Sept 2016 but included no‑shows, cancellations, refusals to engage, and ceased April 6, 2017 for several months.
- Father repeatedly violated probation by using illegal drugs after release, agreed to a Jeopardy Order in July 2016, but failed to maintain sobriety or comply with conditions and failed to eliminate jeopardy.
- Father lacks stable housing and proposed the child’s primary caregiver be his new girlfriend (met three months earlier at a shelter), whom he barely knows and who has never met the child.
- District Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that father was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and to take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; termination of parental rights with adoption as the permanency plan was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding father unwilling/unable to protect child and unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet child's needs (§4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)) | State: Father failed to eliminate jeopardy—drug use, probation violations, no stable housing, poor parenting—justifying termination | Father: He was working to address jeopardy and could obtain adequate housing in a relatively short time | Court: Affirmed—record shows clear and convincing evidence father unlikely to resolve jeopardy within time needed for child; child‑centered timeframe controls |
| Whether termination is in the child's best interest (§4055(1)(B)(2)(a)) | State: Child needs a stable, loving caregiver now; adoption is appropriate permanency plan | Father: Continued efforts make reunification feasible in near term (implied) | Court: Affirmed—child’s need for prompt, stable attachment outweighs waiting for father’s uncertain improvement |
| Whether court abused discretion in weighing evidence and prospective inquiry | Father: Court improperly discounted recent efforts and prospective possibility of change | State: Court may consider retrospective compliance and child’s perspective on timing | Court: No abuse—court properly considered retrospective evidence to assess likely future change from child’s perspective |
| Procedural sufficiency of findings | Father: Insufficient support for termination (argument framed as challenge to sufficiency) | State: Findings were specific and supported by competent evidence | Court: Findings supported by competent evidence; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cameron B., [citation="154 A.3d 1199"] (Me. 2017) (best‑interest inquiry for termination of parental rights)
- In re Charles G., [citation="763 A.2d 1163"] (Me. 2001) (time frame judged from child’s perspective; retrospective evidence informs prospective inquiry)
- In re Alexander D., [citation="716 A.2d 222"] (Me. 1998) (standards for unfitness and timing in termination proceedings)
- In re Thomas H., [citation="889 A.2d 297"] (Me. 2005) (discretionary review of best‑interest determinations and termination remedies)