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

Background

Parents' parental rights to three children (twin sons and a daughter) were terminated under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 based on findings they were unwilling/unable to protect and care for the children and, as to the father, failed to make a good-faith rehabilitative effort.
Initial jeopardy order arose from: parents' inability to manage the boys' behavioral/mental-health needs; inadequate, unstable, unsanitary housing; and the father’s sexually inappropriate communications with his daughter (and the mother’s refusal to accept the daughter’s disclosures).
The mother continued to doubt the daughter’s disclosures for about 18 months and remained effectively linked to the father (living in same building), undermining the court’s finding of a stable separation and parental responsibility.
The father denied wrongdoing, acknowledged the court’s finding, and did little to engage in services; the mother attended some services but showed little insight or progress in meeting the children’s needs.
The guardian ad litem and record evidence supported expedited permanency planning to avoid prolonged uncertainty for the children; the court concluded termination served the children’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness (inability/unwillingness to protect and take responsibility)	Parents: evidence was insufficient; they made progress and needed more time	Department/Court: record shows ongoing housing instability, lack of insight regarding the father’s risk, and inability to meet children’s emotional/behavioral needs	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports parental unfitness findings
Father's failure to make good-faith effort to rehabilitate/reunify under 22 M.R.S. § 4041	Father: argued he engaged or should have more time	Department/Court: father engaged in virtually no services and did not demonstrate rehabilitative effort	Affirmed as to father: failed to make good-faith effort
Timeliness / expedited timeframe from jeopardy order to termination petition	Parents: four-month period was too expedited and did not credit incremental gains	Department/Court: expedited permanency aligns with statutory intent and children’s best interests; marginal progress insufficient	Affirmed: timeline appropriate given children’s needs and statutory purposes
Exclusion of grandmother’s testimony as hearsay (statements about daughter’s alleged prior falsehoods)	Mother: testimony was admissible to show effect on listeners’ state of mind and to explain why she/ grandmother distrusted daughter	Department/Court: testimony recited third-party statements about specific instances, inadmissible hearsay and improper character-evidence	Court did not abuse discretion: initial proffer excluded as hearsay; allowed limited testimony for effect on listener but gave it little weight

Key Cases Cited

In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (standard of review for termination; affirm if any alternative basis supported by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Alana S., 802 A.2d 976 (Me. 2002) (progress toward reunification insufficient if full reunification not foreseeable)
In re Jamara R., 870 A.2d 112 (Me. 2005) (statutory intent favoring timely permanency planning)
In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012) (discussing limits of prior precedents on permanency planning)
In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (trial court discretion in weighing and assigning limited value to evidence)
State v. Harrigan, 662 A.2d 196 (Me. 1995) (limitations on offering third-party statements to prove credibility)
State v. Wells, 423 A.2d 221 (Me. 1980) (rules on character evidence and limits on using specific instances to prove character)