In re Kenneth S.
157 A.3d 244
| Me. | 2017Background
- Child removed two days after birth in Dec. 2014; placed in foster care; DHHS filed for termination in Sept. 2015.
- Mother has low cognitive ability, Autism Spectrum Disorder, behavioral dysregulation, and a limited guardian (her own mother).
- Mother consented to a jeopardy order in July 2015 and participated in a reunification plan but remained unable to care for the child unsupervised.
- Trial court held a three-day contested hearing in May–July 2016 and terminated mother’s parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) in Aug. 2016, finding parental unfitness and that termination served the child’s best interest.
- Child has lived with the same foster parents and four foster siblings almost since birth; foster parents are prepared to adopt.
- Mother proposed placement with her former foster mother, whose foster license had expired and who had limited contact with the child beyond supervised visits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Mother argued termination not warranted because an alternate adoptive/foster placement (her former foster mother) would allow continued relationship | DHHS argued current foster placement promotes permanency, attachment, and adoption prospects | Court held termination was in child’s best interest; removal from bonded foster family would harm child |
| Whether mother’s deficits constitute statutory ground for termination | Mother argued her deficits did not interrupt child’s development and she made diligent efforts | DHHS argued mother’s intractable mental-health/cognitive limitations prevent independent parenting and pose risk of role reversal | Court found clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that mother cannot protect or care for child within reasonable time |
| Whether kinship preference required placement with mother’s proposed caregiver | Mother argued preference for family placement | DHHS/court noted former foster mother is not a defined "relative" and was not licensed at decision time | Court held kinship preference did not apply and placement with former foster mother would not benefit the child |
| Whether safety concerns in foster home undermined best-interest finding | Mother asserted safety problems in foster home | DHHS/court showed foster parents addressed physical safety issues and child was attached to family | Court found no error; safety issues had been adequately addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.M., 114 A.3d 212 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for best-interest determinations)
- In re K.M., 118 A.3d 812 (Me. 2015) (court may consider permanency plan and adoption prospects in best-interest analysis)
- In re Kayla M., 785 A.2d 330 (Me. 2001) (termination appropriate where child bonded to foster family)
- In re Charles G., 763 A.2d 1163 (Me. 2001) (upholding termination where child strongly attached to foster family that sought adoption)
- Guardianship of Hailey M., 140 A.3d 478 (Me. 2016) (clear-and-convincing proof required for parental unfitness)
- In re N.W., 70 A.3d 1219 (Me. 2013) (statutory definition of "relative" limits kinship-preference application)