In re Kaliyah B., 2017 ME 134

Infant Kaliyah was the subject of a jeopardy proceeding under 22 M.R.S. § 4035 after the Department of Health and Human Services became involved.
Mother has ongoing heroin addiction and mental-health issues; used heroin while pregnant and remained addicted at the jeopardy hearing; she had not engaged in services or visitation.
Father has a history of domestic violence and had been described as neglectful and failing to protect the child.
In October 2016 the father left the infant alone with the mother (contrary to Department instructions) while he traveled to New York; the Department undertook a multi-hour search to locate the child.
During the search the father lied repeatedly to Department workers about his and the child’s whereabouts.
The District Court found jeopardy as to both parents and placed the child in Department custody; mother appealed only the jeopardy finding as to the father and aspects of disposition (the latter deemed not appealable).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly found the child in jeopardy in the father’s care	Mother argued the father’s conduct did not amount to jeopardy or was not sufficiently proven	Department argued father’s decision to leave the child with an active heroin user and his lies to the Department created jeopardy	Jeopardy finding as to father affirmed (supported by competent evidence)
Whether the dispositional order placing the child in Department custody is reviewable on appeal	Mother challenged disposition (seeking placement with father)	Department argued disposition is interlocutory and not appealable after jeopardy finding	Dispositional placement is not appealable; court declined to address it
Whether mother preserved or contests the jeopardy finding as to herself	Mother did not contest jeopardy as to herself on appeal	Department relied on mother’s substance use, lack of engagement, and history	Court noted mother did not challenge that finding; jeopardy as to mother stands
Whether a parent can challenge a jeopardy finding as to the other parent	Mother implicitly raised standing to challenge father’s jeopardy	Department assumed without deciding that such standing exists for purposes of appeal	Court assumed without deciding standing and proceeded to review the father’s jeopardy finding

In re Dorothy V., 774 A.2d 1118 (Me. 2001) (standard for proving jeopardy by a preponderance)
In re E.A., 114 A.3d 207 (Me. 2015) (affirming jeopardy finding supported by competent evidence)
In re Z.S., 121 A.3d 1286 (Me. 2015) (dispositional orders following a jeopardy finding are not appealable)