In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190

Background

Mother agreed to a jeopardy order in Sept. 2015 stating children were at risk because she continued to live with her father, whom she had previously reported as a sexual abuser and who allegedly abused one sibling while in her care.
Child was removed; sibling later placed with her father and is no longer in these proceedings; child has been with foster parents since Feb. 2016.
Department provided roughly two years of reunification services addressing the mother’s failure to recognize or protect against risks posed by her father.
At the termination hearing (Apr. 24, 2017), the court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child and to assume parental responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
The court emphasized mother’s lack of insight, poor judgment, and continued residence with/defense of her father despite the identified risk; foster parents sought to adopt and provided a safe, stable home.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether competent evidence supports termination for unfitness and best interest under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)	Mother argued evidence was insufficient to prove she was unfit and termination was not in child’s best interest	Department argued mother failed over two years to address central safety concern and lacked protective capacity; adoption with foster parents is in child’s best interest	Court affirmed termination: evidence supported findings of unwillingness/unability to protect and best-interest conclusion
Whether Department had to prove mother’s father was convicted of sexual abuse to support termination	Mother argued the Department failed to prove a conviction, so the underlying risk claim was unsupported	Department and court treated the focus as mother’s failure to remediate the identified risk, not proving a criminal conviction	Court held conviction proof was unnecessary; risk and mother’s contemporaneous protective capacity were the relevant inquiries
Credibility of mother's recantation about prior report of abuse	Mother claimed she lied when she earlier said her father abused her and insisted he was innocent	Department pointed to the mother’s inconsistent statements and overall lack of protective change; court questioned her credibility	Court rejected mother’s recantation as not credible and relied on judge’s credibility determinations
Whether judge could rely on evidence from earlier stages and same-judge continuity	Mother suggested higher standard at termination required fresh proof distinct from jeopardy-stage findings	Department cited continuity and law allowing consideration of the full record, not only original removal reason	Court held same judge could consider the entire record; different evidentiary focus at termination is on current risk and parental capacity

Key Cases Cited

In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (standards for termination and best-interest analysis)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (discretionary termination review and best-interest considerations)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (termination hearing focuses on post-removal parental actions and current ability to provide safe care)
In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (trial court’s credibility and weight determinations are for the factfinder)
In re Rachel J., 804 A.2d 418 (Me. 2002) (child-protective proceedings assess risk rather than proving criminal conduct)