In re Joseph V.
169 A.3d 389
Me.2017Background
- Joseph V., removed from parents’ care in April 2015 after living in squalid, dangerous conditions; spent much of first 26 months confined to playpen/gated area and had limited opportunity to walk.
- Child has physical therapy needs (musculoskeletal alignment, poor tone, favors left side) and ongoing medical/therapy regimen at Rumford Hospital.
- Reunification plan required parental participation in services; parents missed or poorly complied (failed CODE sessions, often did not bring supplies or toys to visits, failed to obtain timely evaluations, uneven attendance at 34 PT sessions: father 17, mother 7).
- Trial court found recurring lack of follow-through and inability/unwillingness to protect and meet child’s needs within a reasonable time.
- Child has lived with foster parents his entire time in care, is well-bonded, and has made substantial developmental progress; foster parents consistently meet medical/therapy needs and provide strong supports.
- Parents appealed termination of parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055, challenging sufficiency of clear-and-convincing evidence of unfitness and the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence | Parents: record insufficient to prove unfitness | State/Dept.: repeated failures to follow through on services and meet child's needs show unfitness | Court: Affirmed; evidence supported finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Parents: terminating rights was an abuse of discretion | State/Dept.: child bonded to foster parents who meet needs and have enabled progress | Court: Affirmed; termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Charles G., 763 A.2d 1163 (Me. 2001) (standard for reviewing factual findings supported by competent evidence)
- In re Jeffrey E., 557 A.2d 954 (Me. 1989) (special medical needs may justify termination absent an imminent emergency)
- In re Michaela C., 809 A.2d 1245 (Me. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard for parental unfitness)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (best-interest standard in termination cases)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (deference to trial court’s weighing of best-interest factors)
- In re Jacob B., 959 A.2d 734 (Me. 2008) (multiple factors can support a best-interest determination)