In re Lacie G., 2017 ME 129

Mother appealed District Court judgments terminating her parental rights to two children, Lacie G. and Tyler S., under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2).
Court found by clear and convincing evidence mother unable to protect or take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs due to ongoing, untreated substance abuse and criminal exposure.
Mother had intermittent engagement in services (counseling July 2014–Oct 2015) and temporary separation from Tyler’s father, but relapsed when discouraged and has not addressed substance abuse; she was incarcerated at the time of the hearing.
Children were exposed to parental substance abuse and, for Tyler, early domestic violence and developmental trauma; Lacie expressed she would not feel safe living with the mother.
Department provided and referred appropriate services but the mother was unwilling or unable to fully engage; the court found the mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.
Trial court determined termination served the children’s best interests and allowed the Department to pursue adoptive placement; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported statutory ground(s) for termination (parental unfitness)	Mother argued evidence insufficient to prove she was unable to protect or take responsibility within a reasonable time	State argued clear and convincing evidence showed untreated substance abuse, incarceration, failure to engage in services, and resultant risk to children	Affirmed: competent evidence supported finding of parental unfitness under § 4055(1)(B)(2)
Whether mother made good faith efforts to rehabilitate/reunify	Mother contended Department failed its § 4041 duties and thus termination was improper	State showed Department offered appropriate services but mother was unwilling/unable to engage	Affirmed: court found failure to make good faith efforts; Department’s compliance not a discrete element preventing termination
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Mother argued termination was not in children’s best interests given prior engagement in services	State argued children needed stability, safety, and adoptive permanency given trauma and ongoing parental issues	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; termination served children’s best interests
Whether procedural or evidentiary error warranted reversal	Mother claimed insufficiency and procedural defects	State relied on record of findings and clear-and-convincing proof	Affirmed: no reversible error; findings supported by competent evidence

In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (2009 ME 18) (best-interest standard for termination review)
In re M.S., 90 A.3d 443 (2014 ME 54) (standard for proving parental unfitness)
In re Jazmine L., 861 A.2d 1277 (2004 ME 125) (grounds for termination and evidentiary sufficiency)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (2005 ME 123) (discretionary best-interest analysis)
In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (2006 ME 142) (Department’s section 4041 duties do not create a separate element preventing termination)