In re Kayleigh P.
165 A.3d 340
Me.2017Background
- In October 2014 DHHS obtained custody of Kayleigh P. and Mi-kaela P. after finding neglect and general mistreatment while with their mother; the children were placed in foster care and remained there for over two years.
- The father had not seen the children since January 2014; DHHS contacted him but he was unable to assume care; subsequent supervised visits occurred and supervisors described his parenting as "average" and not particularly empathetic.
- A February 2016 termination petition was withdrawn to allow the father additional time for reunification; DHHS then implemented an updated reunification plan with specific requirements (parenting coach, mental health treatment, attendance at medical appointments).
- The father failed to comply with key tasks: poor attendance at medical appointments, lack of understanding of the children’s medical/therapeutic needs, no meaningful engagement with a parenting coach, and resistance to mental health treatment despite diagnoses of depression, PTSD, and ADHD.
- The court found the father relied on his partner (who has a serious child protection history) to parent, raising concerns that separation between them would endanger the children; the children, though having significant needs, improved in foster care with counseling and in‑home services.
- The guardian ad litem recommended termination, concluding the father could not safely parent given the children’s high needs and that adoption would provide needed permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father is unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (inability to protect/assume responsibility within a reasonable time) | DHHS: Father unable to meet children’s needs timely due to lack of progress on reunification plan and untreated mental health issues | Father: Contends evidence does not support findings of unfitness | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports unfitness finding |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest | DHHS & GAL: Children are thriving in foster care, need permanency, adoption appropriate | Father: Implied argument that preservation of parental rights should be favored given supervised visits and some parenting engagement | Court: Affirmed — termination is in children’s best interest given improvement in foster placement and unmet parental deficits |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous | Father: Challenges factual findings underlying unfitness and best interest determinations | Court below: Relied on supervisor testimony, counselor reports, GAL recommendation, and reunification plan compliance | Appellate court: No clear error; substantial deference to trial court credibility and factfinding |
| Whether the court abused discretion in terminating parental rights | Father: Argues termination was premature or unwarranted given extra time after withdrawn petition | Appellee: Court properly weighed the lack of meaningful progress and children’s need for permanency | Court: No abuse of discretion; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (standards for proving parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence and deference to trial court on best‑interest determinations)
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (factual findings supporting unfitness reviewed for clear error)