In re G.T.
130 A.3d 389
| Me. | 2016Background
- Two boys (ages 10 and 12 at trial) had long histories in child-protection proceedings dating to 2003 after domestic violence by the father and neglect by the mother; the Department repeatedly provided services.
- Earlier petitions to terminate parental rights were brought; one termination was denied in 2005 and another in 2006, but the court warned the father must change his abusive behavior.
- In 2013 the older child disclosed physical abuse and death threats by the father; the children were removed from the father’s home and placed in DHHS custody.
- Evaluations and hearings found the father physically and emotionally abusive, diagnosed him with a personality disorder with borderline and narcissistic features, and found he remained hostile, controlling, and unable to use services to change.
- The mother denied the abuse, testified she could not care for the children at her residence and favored reunification with the father, and the court found she could not protect or help the children recover.
- The court concluded both parents were unable to protect the children and that, given the children’s PTSD, developmental needs, and need for permanency, termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests; judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred finding parental unfitness (clear and convincing evidence) | Parents argued they received services and father had relationships with children; prior denials show improvement | DHHS argued ongoing abusive, hostile conduct, diagnostic findings, and parents’ inability to protect or aid recovery | Court: No error; evidence supported finding both parents unfit under §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Parents argued children’s affection for parents and prior opportunities weighed against termination | DHHS argued children need safety, stability, and permanency; continued reunification prospects cause harm | Court: Termination was in children’s best interests given PTSD, developmental delays, and need for permanency |
| Whether mother’s alleged intellectual disability raised due process/disability-law issues | Mother argued disability-based protection required different analysis | DHHS: Court did not make disability finding and based decision on failure to protect; no additional findings requested | Court: Did not reach disability issue; no record finding of intellectual disability and mother did not request further findings |
| Whether circumstances were likely to change within a reasonable time for children’s needs | Parents argued services and time could lead to change | DHHS argued longstanding patterns and failed services made change unlikely in time to meet children’s needs | Court: Reasonable to conclude circumstances unlikely to change within time needed; supports termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (standard for termination after removal and necessity of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (importance of permanency and analysis of parents’ inability to change behavior that jeopardizes children)