In re Gabriel W., 2017 ME 133

Gabriel W. was removed from his parents’ care as an infant (placed in DHHS custody at five days old) and has lived with his foster mother almost his entire life.
The District Court terminated both parents’ rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) after finding they were unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change in a timeframe meeting the child’s needs.
The father failed to comply with his reunification plan, was inconsistent in visitation, had difficulty bonding with the infant, did not engage in recommended services, and did not accept responsibility for conditions placing the child at risk.
The mother’s child was drug-affected at birth; she lacks stable housing, struggles with substance use (including relapses) and mental-health disorders, has not complied with her reunification plan, and has been inconsistent in visitation and cooperation with DHHS.
The court found the child is bonded to and thriving with his foster mother, and concluded termination is in the child’s best interest.
The mother challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence of unfitness/best interest and argued a due-process violation because the court amended its termination order to state explicit findings about her fitness without holding a new hearing.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHHS / Father’s Argument	Held
Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports finding parents unfit under §4055(1)(B)(2)	Mother: DHHS did not provide reasonable reunification efforts; findings of unfitness unsupported	Court: Record supports findings of noncompliance with plans, ongoing substance/mental-health issues, and inability/unwillingness to protect child	Affirmed — factual findings supported by competent evidence; not clearly erroneous
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Mother: termination inappropriate given alleged DHHS failures	DHHS: child bonded to foster mother and needs permanency; parents’ efforts failed	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; substantial deference to trial court
Whether a Department failure to comply with reunification duties precludes a finding of unfitness	Mother: DHHS noncompliance undermines termination	DHHS: statutory duty compliance is not a discrete element in termination proceedings	Rejected — Department’s compliance is not a prerequisite to finding parental unfitness
Whether mother’s due-process rights were violated by an amended order making explicit fitness findings without a new hearing	Mother: amendment amounted to new adverse findings without new hearing	DHHS: mother had full opportunity to be heard at the two-day hearing; amendment only clarified earlier findings	Rejected — mother received notice, opportunity to be heard, and the amendment incorporated prior findings from the hearing

In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for factual findings in termination proceedings)
In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (competent evidence standard; when findings are clearly erroneous)
In re Magdalena F., 146 A.3d 1103 (Me. 2016) (Department’s reunification compliance not a discrete element preventing termination)
In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (same principle regarding DHHS duties in termination proceedings)