In re Kaysean M.
197 A.3d 525
| Me. | 2018Background
- Father (Kaysean M.) appealed termination of his parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 following proceedings where he failed to appear at jeopardy and termination hearings but was represented by counsel.
- At the jeopardy hearing (Sept. 11, 2017) the court found father had abandoned the child and that his communications showed thoughts not grounded in reality; father had recent incarceration and no recent contact with DHHS.
- At the termination hearing (May 7, 2018) the court found father again absent, had abandoned the proceedings, made no efforts toward rehabilitation or reunification, and had mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, and criminal-history concerns.
- The court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that father was unwilling/unable to protect and take responsibility for the child, failed to make good-faith rehabilitation efforts, and abandoned the child; termination was found to be in the child’s best interest.
- Father challenged (1) sufficiency of service by publication under M.R. Civ. P. 4(g)(2) and (2) admission of testimony from a DHHS supervisor; the mother did not join the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service by publication | Notice defective because record lacks proof publication occurred once a week for 3 successive weeks | Record includes published notices for three successive weeks and an affidavit from the newspaper clerk | Service by publication was legally sufficient; claim rejected |
| Admission of DHHS supervisor testimony | Testimony should have been excluded sua sponte; foundation insufficient | Testimony was admissible and no obvious foundational error shown | No obvious error; testimony admissible |
| Merits: unfitness findings | (implicit) father disputes termination | State: clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, inability/unwillingness, failure to rehabilitate | Court’s unfitness findings supported by record; termination affirmed |
| Best interest of child | (implicit) father disputes best-interest conclusion | State: child thriving in relative placement; termination serves child's needs | Court did not abuse discretion; termination in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190 (Me. 2017) (courts may consider evidence from prior stages of child protective proceedings when same judge presided)
- Shultz v. Doeppe, 182 A.3d 1246 (Me. 2018) (review standard for service of process and due process challenges under M.R. Civ. P. 4)
- In re Child of Portia L., 183 A.3d 747 (Me. 2018) (standards for reviewing factual findings and best-interest determination in termination cases)
- Gravison v. Fisher, 134 A.3d 857 (Me. 2016) (obvious-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections and requirement of serious prejudice to warrant reversal)