In re Jonathan D.
200 A.3d 799
| Me. | 2019Background
- Father (Jonathan D.) is a registered sex offender with prior 2008 conviction for unlawful sexual contact involving a two‑year‑old; significant untreated mental health diagnoses and severe childhood trauma.
- Child was ~15 months when DHHS filed a child protection petition (July 2016); Department obtained custody in August 2016.
- Court issued a jeopardy order (Nov 2016) relieving DHHS of reunification obligations with father due to his prior sex offense, but ordered provision of sex‑offender treatment and counseling.
- Father’s engagement in sex‑offender treatment was sporadic; he denied responsibility for the offense and asserted a seizure defense; twice refused to sign treatment contracts.
- DHHS petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights (Jan 2018); trial court granted termination (May 2018), finding father unable/unwilling to protect child or assume parental responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
- Father appealed; appellate counsel found no meritorious issues and father filed no supplemental brief. Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (best interest) is supported | DHHS: Termination is in child’s best interest given risk of sexual abuse, father’s lack of treatment and refusal to accept responsibility | Father: (through counsel) no meritorious appellate issues; at trial father contested treatment and causation (seizure) | Court: Affirmed — termination supported; best interest found by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination under § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (unable/unwilling to protect/take responsibility within reasonable time) is met | DHHS: Father remains unable/unwilling to protect child and to assume responsibility within a time meeting child’s needs | Father: Claimed lack of proof that he cannot change or that risk persists; asserted seizure explanation for prior offense | Court: Affirmed — facts show ongoing high risk, lack of accountability, and insufficient engagement in treatment |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent evidence | DHHS: Record contains testimony and documentary evidence supporting findings on offense, mental health, treatment non‑engagement, and risk to child | Father: Implicit challenge to credibility of some findings (e.g., causation) but no preserved appellate brief | Court: Affirmed — findings supported by competent evidence; no error in weight/credibility determinations |
| Whether court abused discretion in concluding termination is in child's best interest given bond and placement with mother | DHHS: Continued parental rights pose disruption risk; child has had no contact with father since 15 months; custody returned to mother and child is stable | Father: Arguably could have sought reunification or contact over time | Court: Affirmed — continued rights would be disruptive and risky; termination serves child's welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.C., 104 A.3d 139 (Me. 2014) (procedural guidance for counsel’s appellate brief when no meritorious issues exist)
- In re Child of Gustavus E., 182 A.3d 153 (Me. 2018) (standards for termination under § 4055)
- In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (analysis of inability or unwillingness to protect child and timing considerations)
- In re Alexander D., 716 A.2d 222 (Me. 1998) (evidentiary support and best‑interest considerations for termination)
- In re A.H., 77 A.3d 1012 (Me. 2013) (best‑interest standard in parental‑rights termination)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (discretion and standards for terminating parental rights)