In re H.C., 82 A.3d 80

Two children (then about 1 and 3 years old) were placed in DHHS custody after removal for neglect, physical abuse of the daughter, and dangerous living conditions; parents had been diagnosed with borderline intellectual functioning and personality disorders and had adverse CANEP evaluations.
After ~13 months in care and unsuccessful reunification, DHHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055.
On the day before the scheduled contested termination hearing, each parent, through counsel, informed the court they intended to consent to termination and executed written consents before the judge.
The court conducted individual colloquies, explained the effects of termination, probed parents’ understanding and voluntariness, and accepted the signed consents.
Parents appealed, arguing their consents were not knowing and voluntary due to cognitive impairments and that the mother relied on a promised “deal” from DHHS; they did not raise those concerns below by post-judgment motion.
The District Court terminated parental rights; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding clear and convincing evidence supported that consents were knowing and voluntary and rejecting the mother’s fraud claim.

Issue	Parents' Argument	DHHS / State's Argument	Held
Whether parental consents were "knowing and voluntary" given parents’ cognitive limitations	Parents: cognitive impairments prevented understanding of consequences; insufficient time to deliberate	Court conducted probing colloquies, explained effects, parents reviewed forms with counsel, no evidence of incapacity	Held: Consents were knowingly and voluntarily executed; record supports clear and convincing finding
Proper burden/standard of proof for consent-based termination	Parents implicitly argued heightened protection needed	State: termination may follow valid parental consent	Held: Standard for termination by consent is clear and convincing evidence (parental liberty interest)
Whether mental incapacity invalidated consents	Parents: diagnoses show incapacity to understand consent	State: no prior adjudication of incompetency; parents had previously made similar related decisions and never raised capacity concerns	Held: No showing of incapacity; parents could reasonably understand consequences; capacity challenge fails
Whether the mother’s consent was procured by fraud (an alleged “deal”)	Mother: consent induced by an unauthorized promise of continued contact with her eldest child	State: mother’s motive also included realistic assessment of poor prospects at contested hearing; no evidence of false material representation	Held: Fraud claim unsupported by record; consent not invalidated

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizes parental rights as fundamental liberty interest requiring heightened procedural protections)
In re Daniel C., 480 A.2d 766 (Me. 1984) (due process requires clear and convincing proof in termination proceedings)
In re Amanda N., 710 A.2d 264 (Me. 1998) (analogizing consent to termination with adoption surrender-release; court must explain rights, effects, and ensure voluntariness)
In re David H., 637 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1994) (appellate review of termination requires clear-error review under clear and convincing standard)
In re Danielle B., 685 A.2d 770 (Me. 1996) (courts must probe parent’s understanding and voluntariness when accepting consent)