In re M.B.
2013 ME 46
| Me. | 2013Background
- M.B. and G.W.'s parental rights were terminated by the District Court in Maine.
- Parents argued due process violations: termination order issued before post-trial briefs were received and admission of M.B.'s statements made to the court without counsel present.
- M.B. was born Feb. 22, 2004; G.W. born Aug. 8, 2008; mother and father separated after M.B. was born; the family moved from Florida to Massachusetts before coming to Maine.
- DHS removed the children in Oct. 2009 amid concerns of abuse and the mother's sex-offender substantiation; G.W. showed anal injuries deemed consistent with trauma.
- Reunification efforts failed: father largely absent for over a year, mother inconsistent with services; concerns persisted about safety and stability for M.B.
- The court found clear and convincing evidence of jeopardy, unfitness, and that termination was in the children's best interests, with adoption as the permanency plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court violate due process by terminating before post-trial briefs? | Parents claim due process violated by early judgment despite briefing deadline. | Court properly allowed briefing and acted within discretion under Rule 51(a). | No due process violation; briefing rights were not mandatory and judgment issued with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| Was the child interview off the record a due process violation? | Off-record interview without counsel violated 22 M.R.S. § 4007(2). | Court may interview child; statements admissible under § 4007(2). | Not dispositive; even assuming violation, no prejudice shown; harmless given other evidence. |
| Was the father unfit and was termination in the best interests? | Father had made reunification efforts and could have waited longer; termination not in best interests. | Father failed to act for 15 months, contributing to jeopardy; termination in best interests. | Supported by clear and convincing evidence; adoption warranted and in MB's best interests. |
| Did the Department make a good faith effort to reunify the mother? | Mother argues Department failed to provide reasonable reunification services due to caseworker turnover. | Record supports diligent and reasonable efforts; failure to reunify does not preclude termination. | supported by record; termination upheld, even if some reunification services were imperfect. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.P., 2013 ME 40 (Me. 2013) (de novo review of law and Maine Rules interpretation)
- In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (proof of error and deference to trial court on due process and evidentiary issues)
- In re Kristy Y., 752 A.2d 166 (Me. 2000) (child's placement preference and evidentiary considerations in custody)
- In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993) (harmless error when inadmissible evidence is corroborated by other record evidence)
- In re Leona T., 642 A.2d 166 (Me. 1994) (jeopardy and foster care considerations in termination decisions)
- In re Doris G., 2006 ME 142 (Me. 2006) (termination upheld despite Department reunification service concerns)
- In re Charles G., 2001 ME 3 (Me. 2001) (timing for permanency considering child's perspective)
- In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104 (Me. 2004) (unfitness analysis and statutory criteria for termination)