In re M.P., 2015 ME 138

Mother's parental rights to M.P. were terminated under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1) after a petition by DHHS and a February 2014 termination hearing.
District Court found clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in M.P.'s best interests.
Mother has cognitive limitations and histories of anxiety/depression; she participated in multiple reunification and support programs for months but safety concerns persisted.
The termination hearing featured testimony from six witnesses; the mother testified but her attorney offered no additional witnesses, and GAL testified.
During the Rule 60(b)(6) motion process, mother claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and sought to call additional witnesses; affidavits were submitted from others.
The trial court denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, finding no deficient performance by counsel and that additional testimony would not have altered the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural vehicle for ineffectiveness claims	Mother argues for relief via 60(b)(6) or direct appeal path.	State asserts procedural route balanced with finality interests; direct appeal preferred when record suffices.	Direct appeal with no new facts; or 60(b)(6) when needed, properly limited.
Applicable standard for ineffective assistance	Mother contends for a standard beyond Strickland.	State argues for Strickland or, alternatively, a comparable 'fundamental fairness' approach.	Court adopts Strickland standard, adapted for termination proceedings.
Due process at Rule 60(b)(6) hearing	Mother contends denial of opportunity to call witnesses violated due process.	State contends process balanced private and state interests and affidavits sufficed.	Procedures at the Rule 60(b)(6) hearing were adequate and not a due process violation.
Mathews v. Eldridge factors relevance	Mother asserts procedures failed to protect liberty interests.	State maintains balance among private, governmental interests; procedures were appropriate.	Mathews factors weighed in favor of adequacy; no due process violation shown.
Record sufficiency for ineffective assistance claim	Mother contends the record should be supplemented to prove deficiency and prejudice.	State argues affidavits and testimony at 60(b)(6) suffice to evaluate effectiveness.	Record was adequate; no need to supplement for direct appeal under Strickland.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance; deficiency and prejudice)
In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066 (Haw. 2010) (adopted alternative 'fundamental fairness' standard in some states)
In re Cody T., 979 A.2d 81 (Me. 2009) (parental rights termination and due process considerations)
In re S.P., 76 A.3d 390 (Me. 2013) (analysis of ineffective assistance in termination context (Me.))
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1976) (three-factor test for due process procedures)
Aldus v. State, 748 A.2d 463 (Me. 2000) (standard for evaluating trial counsel performance)
In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (terminology and standards for termination proceedings)
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (review of termination and best interest findings)
In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (due process and opportunity to be heard in termination context)
Theriault v. State, 2015 ME 137, --- A.3d --- (Me. 2015) (clarification of Strickland components in Maine context)