In re Mackenzie P., 166 A.3d 104

Mother’s parental rights to two children (ages 12 and 7) were terminated under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) after ~18 months of reunification services.
Mother obtained stable housing but repeatedly missed scheduled visits and other plan obligations for roughly 14 of the 18 months; children waited and were often disappointed.
Department suspended visits after a pattern of nonattendance; children bonded with foster parents who are willing to adopt; elder child wishes adoption.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence mother was unwilling/unable to protect and parent the children and that this was unlikely to change in time to meet their needs.
Gal (guardian ad litem) missed required in-person contact and filed a late report; court excluded the GAL’s testimony and late report at mother’s request.
Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous best-interest determination, and denial of due process from GAL noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for unfitness (statutory grounds)	Mother: evidence insufficient to show unwilling/unable to protect or take responsibility	State: record shows repeated noncompliance with reunification plan and reckless disregard for children’s emotional health	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports findings of unwillingness/unability and unlikelihood of timely change
Best-interests determination	Mother: court abused discretion; relied on excluded GAL report/opinion	State: findings supported by other admissible evidence; foster parents bonded and adoption serves permanency	Affirmed — termination with adoption plan was in children’s best interests
GAL statutory noncompliance (in-person contact and late report) / due process	Mother: GAL’s failure prejudiced her and violated due process	State: court excluded GAL’s late report/testimony at mother’s request; no concrete prejudice shown	Affirmed — exclusion mitigated prejudice; termination narrowly tailored to children’s need for permanency
Department’s suspension of visits as failure to facilitate reunification	Mother: suspending visits impeded reunification	State: suspension was proper to protect children and advance permanency after prolonged nonattendance	Rejected — suspension did not constitute failure to facilitate; department balanced protection and timely permanency

In re B.R., 126 A.3d 713 (Me. 2015) (limited time for reunification; Legislature set timing in days and months)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (standards for best-interest and narrowing termination to serve permanency)
In re Kaleb C., 795 A.2d 71 (Me. 2002) (GAL deficient performance that did not affect outcome)
In re Richard G., 770 A.2d 625 (Me. 2001) (permanency and statutory framework supporting termination)
In re Alexander D., 716 A.2d 222 (Me. 1998) (department may balance reunification efforts against protecting children and timely transition)
In re Denise M., 670 A.2d 390 (Me. 1996) (department’s failure to meet reunification obligations does not automatically preclude termination)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (trial court’s role to weigh and credit evidence presented)