In re Magdalena F.
146 A.3d 1103
| Me. | 2016Background
- Children (ages 6–9) have been in Department custody since Feb. 2014 for neglect; previously in custody 2010–2012 for similar concerns.
- All three children have special needs (reactive attachment disorder; two with PTSD), exhibit aggressive and disruptive behavior, and require intensive, structured care; two cannot live together due to conflict.
- Reunification efforts failed: parents were uncooperative and did not provide the necessary patience, stability, or structure; visitation and engagement problems occurred.
- Mother admitted to inappropriate discipline (locking children in a room), has a diagnosed personality disorder, showed poor insight, and did not present solutions or timely assume responsibility.
- Father had lengthy incarcerations, has acknowledged he is not ready to assume responsibility, was described as largely oblivious to allegations, and agreed to a jeopardy order in 2014.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that parents failed to make good faith efforts to rehabilitate and reunify and that termination was in the children’s best interests; termination affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Mother) Argument | Defendant's (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents were unfit for failing to rehabilitate/reunify | Mother argued the court improperly relied on missed supervised visits as basis for unfitness; claimed plan requirements conflicted with her work and set her up to fail | Father argued he could not complete a required parenting program because it was not offered | Court upheld finding of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence based on broader failures to engage, protect children, and assume responsibility; not dependent on any single missed program or visit |
| Whether Department’s reunification-plan scheduling deprived mother of due process | Mother contended plan obligations (maintain employment; scheduling) made compliance impossible, denying due process | Department argued mother’s missed visits were largely her fault (lack of organization), not caused by plan infeasibility | Court rejected mother’s due-process claim; found missed visits were mostly her fault and that unfitness findings rested on broader evidence of failure to engage and assume responsibility |
| Whether father’s claim about unavailable services (parenting program) excuses noncompliance | Father claimed program was not offered and thus he could not comply | Department noted record does not show program unavailable and father had not sought information; court emphasized broader evidence of unwillingness/inability | Court rejected father’s excuse; unfitness finding did not hinge on that program but on overall unwillingness/inability to protect children and reunify |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hannah S., 133 A.3d 590 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing trial-court factual findings)
- In re B.P., 126 A.3d 713 (Me. 2015) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds and best interests)
- In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (Department’s compliance with reunification duties is not a discrete element of proof in termination proceedings)