In re M.S., 2014 ME 54

March 2012: police repeatedly responded to a prolonged verbal confrontation at parents’ home while two‑year‑old M.S. and his half‑sister were present; mother was using bath salts provided by father. A relative found M.S. unattended in a full bathtub and removed him to safety.
DHHS obtained an ex parte preliminary protection order and a jeopardy order; jeopardy findings charged mother with inability to provide adequate care due to mental health and substance abuse, and father with failure to protect and contributing to jeopardy by providing/using drugs with mother.
Assessment of M.S. showed cognitive delay, aggression, and aversion to physical affection; he requires a stable caregiver able to obtain services for him.
Mother (convicted of drug trafficking) served a one‑year sentence; she completed minimal programming, denied substance problems, had only one supervised visit that caused M.S. to regress, and upon release moved back in with father.
Father brought M.S. home for unsupervised contact with mother contrary to DHHS directives; he remained enmeshed in the relationship, failed to work with the child’s social worker, and minimized risks posed by mother.
DHHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; after a two‑day hearing the District Court terminated both parents’ rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055, finding parents unwilling/unable to protect M.S. and that termination was in M.S.’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of testimony about father’s care for his daughter	Father: testimony about his positive relationship with his daughter was relevant to his fitness and M.S.’s best interest	DHHS: testimony irrelevant because no jeopardy order existed as to the daughter	Court: exclusion was clear error (evidence was relevant) but harmless because father later testified to same matters without objection
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness	DHHS: evidence shows parents failed to remediate jeopardy and are unfit under § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)	Mother/father: challenged sufficiency of clear‑and‑convincing proof	Court: competent evidence supported findings by clear and convincing evidence; termination justified
Best‑interest determination for father	DHHS: termination serves M.S.’s need for stability and safety	Father: termination not in child’s best interest	Court: factual findings on father’s enmeshment not clearly erroneous; terminating father’s rights was not an abuse of discretion
Harmless‑error standard application	Father: exclusion of caseworker testimony was prejudicial	DHHS: error did not affect outcome	Court: error harmless because identical evidence was later admitted via father’s testimony; unlikely to have affected result

State v. Roberts, 951 A.2d 803 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for relevance findings)
State v. LeBlanc, 559 A.2d 349 (Me. 1989) (relevance standard described as minimal)
United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002) (evidence relevance is a low threshold)
State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. 1992) (discussing low‑level relevance test)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (harmless error standard in termination proceedings)
In re Annie A., 774 A.2d 378 (Me. 2001) (review standard for clear‑and‑convincing evidence)
In re Charles G., 763 A.2d 1163 (Me. 2001) (proof of any statutory ground justifies termination)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (standard for reviewing best‑interest findings)