In Re Hannah S.
133 A.3d 590
| Me. | 2016Background
- Father incarcerated after arrest for drug trafficking; earliest possible release ~Oct 2016 (≈15 months after July 2015 hearing). He remained incarcerated throughout proceedings.
- In July 2013 the child (then ~1 year old) ingested a Suboxone strip while in father’s care; neither parent could explain how the child accessed it.
- Father removed from home under Department safety plan and later participated in prison programming addressing substance abuse and parenting; he expressed love for child and willingness to work for reunification.
- Child’s play therapist testified the child suffered trauma, has an immediate need for stability and permanency, and that long-term foster care would be harmful.
- Child placed in pre-adoptive foster home able to meet her needs; mother consented to termination of her parental rights conditioned on termination of father’s rights.
- District Court terminated father’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2); father appealed arguing impermissible reliance on incarceration and inadequate reunification efforts by the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly based termination on incarceration | Father: termination rested impermissibly on his incarceration | DHHS: court may consider incarceration’s effect on ability to meet child’s needs within reasonable time | Court: Proper to consider length/effect of incarceration when assessing ability to take responsibility within child’s needed timeframe; not sole basis for termination |
| Whether father could take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet child’s needs | Father: incarceration prevented timely reunification but he was rehabilitating and should not be penalized | DHHS: child needed immediate permanency; father’s earliest release was too remote given child’s need | Court: Father incapable of taking responsibility within needed time due to incarceration length and child’s need for immediate permanency |
| Whether Department failed to make meaningful reunification efforts | Father: DHHS did not adequately pursue reunification | DHHS: made efforts, but father’s incarceration and visitation uncertainty limited options | Court: Department’s compliance is not a discrete element; court need not make separate finding if adequate basis for parental unfitness exists; lack of efforts may be a factor but was not required to be found separately |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Father: continued parental relationship preferable given his efforts | DHHS: permanency and stability in pre-adoptive placement better for child | Court: Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence and is in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.S., 90 A.3d 443 (Me. 2014) (standard of review and evidentiary support for findings)
- In re Cody T., 979 A.2d 81 (Me. 2009) (incarceration alone cannot be sole ground for termination; consider nurturing relationship using available means)
- In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450 (Me. 1986) (courts may consider incarceration realities in permanence analysis)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (policy favoring permanency over long-term foster care)
- In re L.D., 123 A.3d 990 (Me. 2015) (parent’s ability to protect or take responsibility within child’s timeframe relevant)
- In re Daniel C., 480 A.2d 766 (Me. 1984) (consideration of parental availability in termination decisions)
- In re R.M., 114 A.3d 212 (Me. 2015) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination appeals)
- In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (Department’s §4041 reunification duties are not a discrete element in termination proceedings)
- In re Jazmine L., 861 A.2d 1277 (Me. 2004) (Rule 52(a) findings should be sufficiently detailed for review)