In re Gabriel W.
166 A.3d 982
| Me. | 2017Background
- Child (Gabriel W.) was placed in DHHS custody five days after birth and has been in foster care almost his entire life.
- DHHS filed to terminate parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2); District Court held a two-day hearing in June 2016.
- Father: did not comply with reunification plan, inconsistent visits, failed to engage in recommended services, and would not accept responsibility for conditions placing the child in jeopardy.
- Mother: child was drug-affected at birth; mother lacked stable housing, struggled with substance use and mental-health diagnoses, had relapses shown by positive screens, did not comply with reunification plan, and was inconsistent in visitation.
- District Court entered a July 18, 2016 termination judgment and issued an amended order in August 2016 clarifying it had expressly found both parents unwilling or unable to protect the child and that termination served the child’s best interest.
- Parents appealed; mother additionally argued the amended order violated due process because no new hearing was held before the explicit fitness finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports parental unfitness under § 4055(1)(B)(2) | Parents: evidence insufficient to show they are unwilling or unable to protect the child or that circumstances won’t change | State: evidence of failed reunification, instability, noncompliance, substance use, and inconsistent visitation supports unfitness | Affirmed — findings supported by competent evidence; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Parents: termination not warranted; DHHS failed reasonable reunification efforts | State: child bonded with foster parent, stable placement, best interest favors permanency | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; best-interest finding supported |
| Whether alleged DHHS failure to pursue reunification precludes termination | Mother: DHHS did not engage in reasonable reunification, so termination improper | State: any DHHS noncompliance is not a discrete element preventing unfitness finding | Rejected — Department’s compliance is not a discrete element required to prove unfitness |
| Whether amending the judgment to state an explicit fitness finding without a new hearing violated mother’s due process | Mother: amendment added an explicit unfitness finding without a new hearing, denying meaningful opportunity to be heard on that specific finding | State: mother fully participated in the evidentiary hearing; amended order merely clarified findings and incorporated the July 18 findings | Rejected — mother received procedural due process because she had notice, opportunity to be heard, and fully participated at the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for factual findings in termination proceedings)
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (best-interest review: abuse of discretion; due-process components)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (competent-evidence standard for factual findings)
- In re Magdalena F., 146 A.3d 1103 (Me. 2016) (Department’s reunification compliance not a discrete element in termination proof)
- In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (similar principle regarding DHHS duties and termination findings)
- Mitchell v. Krieckhaus, 158 A.3d 951 (Me. 2017) (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)