In re Hope H., 170 A.3d 813

Parents appealed District Court judgment terminating parental rights to three children (twins and daughter) under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 based on findings of parental unfitness and that termination served the children’s best interests.
Jeopardy order arose from parents’ inability to meet boys’ behavioral/mental-health needs, unstable/unsanitary housing, mother’s refusal to accept daughter’s disclosures about father, and father’s sexually inappropriate communications with the daughter.
Mother initially insisted the daughter was delusional despite medical exams and consistent disclosures; father denied wrongdoing but acknowledged the court’s finding and reunification plan obligations.
Mother claimed separation from father but continued to live in same building; court found little evidence of sincere separation or parental capacity (no employment, dependency, inadequate parenting skill gains).
GAL testified permanency and adoption would better serve children’s need for stability and safety; trial court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination and that father failed to make a good-faith effort at reunification.

Issue	Parents' Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for parental unfitness under §4055	Evidence insufficient; parents made progress and should not be found unfit	Record shows unwillingness/ inability to protect children, persistent jeopardy; clear and convincing evidence supports unfitness	Affirmed: competent evidence supports parental unfitness findings
Best interests determination for termination	Termination not required; parents claim incremental gains and wish to remain parents	Expedited permanency and children’s need for stability outweigh parental progress	Affirmed: termination was within trial court’s discretion and in children’s best interests
Timeline (expedited proceeding) — four months from jeopardy to petition	Four-month timeline inappropriate and precluded full credit for improvements	Statute and children’s need for prompt permanency justify expedited process	Affirmed: timeline proper given circumstances and statutory intent
Exclusion of grandmother’s testimony as hearsay	Testimony admissible to show effect on listeners’ state of mind and to explain disbelief of daughter	Testimony recited third-party statements offered for truth and was inadmissible hearsay; limited allowance already given for state-of-mind purpose	Affirmed: trial court properly excluded hearsay and permissibly limited testimony’s scope

In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (standard of review for termination findings and affirming if any alternative basis supported by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Alana S., 802 A.2d 976 (Me. 2002) (parental progress does not preclude termination when full reunification is not possible in foreseeable future)
In re Jamara R., 870 A.2d 112 (Me. 2005) (expedited permanency planning supports children’s interests in prompt movement to permanency)
In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012) (limits and clarifications on prior permanency/termination holdings)
In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (trial court’s discretion on weight of evidence)
State v. Harrigan, 662 A.2d 196 (Me. 1995) (limits on using third-party statements to impeach witness credibility)
State v. Wells, 423 A.2d 221 (Me. 1980) (rules on admissibility of character evidence regarding untruthfulness)