In re K.M.
118 A.3d 812
| Me. | 2015Background
- Child removed May 2012 after sister reported father threatened to kill the mother; court entered jeopardy order Oct 2012 finding verbal/emotional abuse and exposure of children to volatile confrontations.
- Court found father blamed the eight‑year‑old sister for family problems and had unstable mental health creating risk to children.
- Father attended reunification services including weekly counseling and family team meetings but persisted in adversarial, blaming behavior and did not address domestic‑violence dynamics.
- Counselor testified father had difficulty reflecting on needed changes, mischaracterized others, and that his outlook risked isolating and emotionally harming the child.
- Child spent nearly two of his three years placed with his aunt, was attached to her, and aunt was willing to adopt.
- District Court terminated father’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1); father appealed sufficiency of evidence on unfitness and best‑interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports finding father unfit/unable to protect child from jeopardy | Father argued he engaged in services and disputed allegations, denying domestic violence dynamics and contesting court’s view | DHHS argued father failed to internalize concerns, remained emotionally volatile, and posed ongoing risk despite services | Court: Affirmed — competent evidence supported unfitness finding under clear and convincing standard |
| Whether circumstances were unlikely to change within a time meeting child’s needs | Father contended progress in services would continue and reunification remained possible | DHHS pointed to father’s lack of insight, continued blaming, and suspended productive meetings as indicating low likelihood of timely change | Court: Affirmed — evidence showed unlikely improvement within child’s needed timeframe |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Father argued existing parent–child relationship and participation in services supported keeping parental rights | DHHS emphasized child’s attachment to foster aunt, stability there, and ongoing risk from father’s issues | Court: Affirmed — best interest favored termination given strong bond with aunt and father’s unresolved issues |
| Reliance on multiple bases for unfitness (alternative grounds) | Father challenged sufficiency generally | DHHS relied on multiple independent evidentiary bases (mental health risk, failure to take responsibility, hostile behavior) | Court: Affirmed — will uphold judgment if any alternative basis is supported; record provided multiple clear and convincing bases |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.S., 90 A.3d 443 (Me. 2014) (standard for reviewing clear‑and‑convincing sufficiency challenges)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (affirmance permitted where any of multiple bases for unfitness is supported)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (affirming unfitness where parent remained unable to identify risks despite services)
- In re Kayla M., 785 A.2d 330 (Me. 2001) (best‑interest analysis includes significant bonding with foster parent and stability of foster home)