In re Mathew H.
2017 ME 151
| Me. | 2017Background
- Father appealed District Court judgment terminating his parental rights to sons Mathew H. and Kamron H. under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).
- Children were in state custody due to parental neglect/abandonment; mother previously found to have abandoned them and is not a party.
- Trial court found father incarcerated until at least July 2017, with significant criminal history and substance abuse (including drug use while incarcerated delaying release).
- Mental-health experts and caregivers testified the children have serious attachment and other diagnoses and need immediate, stable permanency to continue healing.
- Court found father unwilling/unable to protect and parent within a timeframe reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, had not made good-faith rehabilitation efforts, and that termination (rather than permanency guardianship) was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding father unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) | Father argued he engaged in programs and should not be found unfit | State argued incarceration, criminal history, substance use, and failure to rehabilitate made reunification infeasible in a timely manner | Court found clear and convincing evidence of unfitness and no clear error |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest | Father favored permanency guardianship to preserve parental relationship | State, GAL, and caregiver argued children need immediate, permanent, stable home to heal | Court exercised discretion to hold termination is in children’s best interest |
| Whether permanency guardianship was an adequate alternative disposition | Father promoted guardianship as preferable | Opponents argued it would not provide real, lasting permanency given children’s needs | Court rejected guardianship as not appropriate or sufficiently permanent |
| Whether procedural defects (de facto parent status for former wife; GAL’s failure to interview father) invalidate judgment | Father argued former wife should have counsel as de facto parent and GAL failed statutory duty to interview him | State noted issues not raised below and former wife did not intervene; any GAL deficiencies did not affect outcome | Appellate court declined to address unraised claims and found no reversible error; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Logan M., 155 A.3d 430 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for factual findings in parental-termination cases)
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (review and deference to trial court’s best-interest determination)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (reliance on competent evidence to support findings)
- In re David W., 8 A.3d 673 (Me. 2010) (trial court discretion in declining permanency guardianship)
- In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (permanency guardianship considerations and trial court discretion)
- Karamanoglu v. Gourlaouen, 140 A.3d 1249 (Me. 2016) (preservation rule limits appellate review of issues not raised below)
- In re Kaleb C., 795 A.2d 71 (Me. 2002) (GAL deficiencies that do not affect outcome do not mandate reversal)