In re L.D., 123 A.3d 990

L.D. born May 8, 2013, premature and drug-affected; both parents had substance-abuse histories and the father had multiple criminal convictions and was on probation at the time of birth.
DHHS removed L.D. from parental care shortly after birth; child lived with the same nonrelative foster family from about six weeks old through the termination hearing.
Paternity was confirmed in October 2013; a jeopardy order as to the father was entered that day based on substance abuse and criminal history.
Father had repeated relapse and criminal conduct, including revoked probation and incarceration; while in a pre-release center in 2014 he tested clean and participated in services.
DHHS filed to terminate parental rights in June 2014; at the December 2014 hearing the father appeared and requested kin placement with his brother (who and his wife had begun licensure steps), while the child’s foster parents sought adoption.
The District Court terminated both parents’ parental rights and declined to change L.D.’s current non-kin placement; father appeals only the termination and placement/kinship-investigation issues.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHS/State’s Argument	Held
Termination of parental rights	Father argued termination was unwarranted given his progress while in pre-release and participation in services	Father’s substance-abuse and criminal history show inability to protect child and failure to reunify	Court affirmed termination: clear and convincing evidence father couldn’t protect or assume responsibility within a time meeting child’s needs and failed to make good-faith reunification efforts; termination in child’s best interest
Whether child’s placement should be changed to kin (father’s brother)	Father requested placement with his brother (who had an appropriate home and was pursuing licensure); argued placement with kin was preferable	DHHS argued placement decision is interlocutory and not appealable under 22 M.R.S. § 4006; foster placement was stable and met child’s needs	Appeal as to placement dismissed under § 4006 as interlocutory; court did not review placement merits
DHHS duty to investigate known kinship placements	Father argued DHHS failed to investigate/notify relatives as required by statute and improperly preferred nonrelative foster placement	DHHS contended placement issues are not subject to appellate review in this interlocutory context	Court dismissed appellate review of these claims under § 4006 and therefore did not reach merits of alleged statutory investigatory failures

In re R.M., 114 A.3d 212 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for termination orders: factual findings for clear error and best-interest review for abuse of discretion)
In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (sufficiency of evidence standard for affirming termination orders)
In re L.R., 97 A.3d 602 (Me. 2014) (§ 4006 bars appeals of interlocutory placement and most non-termination orders)