In re Heather W., 180 A.3d 661

Mother (Heather W.) has long-standing opioid addiction beginning with prescribed opiates in 2010, multiple relapses, periods of treatment, and later heroin/fentanyl use; criminal convictions and incarcerations disrupted reunification efforts.
Child was removed in May 2015 after theft and eviction incidents; court entered a jeopardy order finding the mother unable to provide adequate care due to addiction.
Visits were fully supervised; concerns included the mother appearing drowsy and extended absences; visitation was further interrupted by the mother’s incarcerations and relapses and had not resumed by trial.
Child diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder and experienced multiple foster placements, a trial placement with father, and two psychiatric hospitalizations.
At trial the mother had recently begun a new substance abuse program (two weeks into a program up to 52 weeks) and proposed a timeline of 30–60 days to secure housing and 3–6 months of services before full-time parenting; the court found this timeline unrealistic given chronic relapse history.
The District Court terminated the mother’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv); father consented to termination and did not appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether competent evidence supports finding parental unfitness under §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i),(ii),(iv)	Heather: evidence insufficient; she is in treatment and can reunify	State: chronic addiction, repeated relapses, incarceration, inability to protect and take responsibility	Court: Finding of unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination is in child’s best interest under §4055(1)(B)(2)(a)	Heather: timeline for reunification reasonable	State: child needs prompt permanency given time in care and instability	Court: Termination with adoption plan is in child’s best interest
Whether Department failed to provide required reunification services under §4041	Heather: Department’s efforts were inadequate and hindered reunification	State: Department made reasonable efforts and provided many services	Court: Compliance with §4041 is not a discrete element; record shows reasonable efforts; mother still failed to reunify
Whether Department’s alleged failures preclude termination	Heather: Department’s shortcomings should bar finding of unfitness	State: Failure to fully comply does not preclude unfitness finding	Court: Department’s partial or alleged failures do not prevent termination when parent remains unfit

In re Anastasia M., [citation="172 A.3d 922"] (Me. 2017) (standard of review for termination—fact findings for clear error, termination decision for abuse of discretion)
In re Logan M., [citation="155 A.3d 430"] (Me. 2017) (permanency and best-interest considerations in termination cases)
In re Thomas H., [citation="889 A.2d 297"] (Me. 2005) (termination standard and child welfare principles)
In re Doris G., [citation="912 A.2d 572"] (Me. 2006) (Department’s compliance with reunification duties under §4041 not a discrete element preventing termination)