In re Kelcie L.
184 A.3d 387
| Me. | 2018Background
- Parents appealed District Court judgment terminating both their parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 after the Department placed the infant with relatives and foster parents and pursued reunification efforts.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence both parents were unwilling or unable to protect or responsibly care for the child within a reasonable time, and had not made good faith efforts to rehabilitate and reunify.
- The Department provided services including safety assessment, supervised visitation, kinship foster placement, referrals for counseling, medication management, parenting education, parental assessment (mother), and case management; parents were found inconsistent in participating in services.
- Mother: remained withdrawn during visits, failed to consistently participate in mental health care and medication management, continued a relationship with the violent father, and declined visits when the father’s visits were suspended.
- Father: repeatedly disruptive and aggressive in court, avoided a court-ordered diagnostic evaluation, inconsistently engaged in counseling and medication, had violent incidents (including an alleged assault on a stranger), behaved dangerously during visits, and visits were suspended for months; yet showed warmth to the child during some supervised visits.
- The court found the child needs a calm, soothing environment and permanency; the child had lived with grandparents and foster parents since release from the hospital at 19 days old.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for mother's unfitness | Dept satisfied statutory obligations; evidence supports unfitness | Mother: Dept failed to meet § 4041(1‑A) obligations, so unfitness not proven | Court: Dept fulfilled obligations; clear and convincing evidence supports at least one ground of unfitness for mother (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for father's unfitness | Dept: evidence shows failure to rehabilitate, dangerous behavior, avoidant of evaluation | Father: claimed progress toward rehabilitation | Court: evidence supports by clear and convincing proof at least one ground of unfitness for father (affirmed) |
| Best interest / permanency guardianship for father | Dept: termination with adoption plan serves child’s need for calm, permanency | Father: permanency guardianship would be preferable to termination (not argued at trial) | Court: no obvious error; given father’s conduct and child’s needs, termination in child's best interest; permanency guardianship not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Haylie W., 167 A.3d 576 (Me. 2017) (standard for termination of parental rights)
- Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for termination decisions)
- In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (unfitness finding support by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Hannah S., 133 A.3d 590 (Me. 2016) (unfitness standards)
- In re L.T., 120 A.3d 650 (Me. 2015) (review for obvious error when issue not raised at trial)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (permanency fashioned to child’s circumstances)
Judgment affirmed.