In re Mathew H.
167 A.3d 561
| Me. | 2017Background
- Father appealed from a District Court judgment terminating his parental rights to two sons under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).
- Children exhibited serious mental-health and attachment-related diagnoses; experts testified they needed immediate, stable permanency for healing.
- Father was incarcerated until at least July 2017, had a significant criminal history, substance-abuse problems (including illicit drug use in prison in Dec. 2015), and inconsistent communication with the children.
- Trial court found reunification could not reasonably occur within a time to meet the children’s needs and that the father had not made a good-faith effort at rehabilitation.
- The court concluded termination was in the children’s best interest and rejected the father’s proposal of a permanency guardianship as insufficiently permanent for these children.
- Father argued additionally that his former wife should have been treated as a de facto parent and that the guardian ad litem failed to interview him; those arguments were not raised below and were not considered reversible error on this record.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State/Dept’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence the father was unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) | Father contended he had made rehabilitative efforts and participation in prison programs showed fitness | Evidence of long incarceration, criminal history, substance use, inconsistent contact, and expert testimony that children needed permanency now | Court’s factual findings supported; father unfit (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Father argued less drastic options (e.g., permanency guardianship) could preserve a relationship | Professionals and caregiver testified children require immediate permanent, stable placement for healing; guardianship not truly permanent here | Termination affirmed as in children’s best interest; guardianship rejected |
| Whether permanency guardianship should be ordered instead of adoption | Father proposed guardianship to avoid termination | Foster mother, GAL, Department opposed; court found guardianship would not offer needed lasting permanency | Court acted within discretion in rejecting permanency guardianship |
| Whether failure to find former wife a de facto parent or alleged GAL failure to interview requires reversal | Father argued former wife should have had de facto-parent status and GAL failed statutory interview duty | Neither argument was raised at trial; former wife did not seek intervention; any GAL deficiencies did not affect outcome | Claims not preserved; no reversible error on this record |
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) (appellate review deference to trial court’s best-interest determination)
- In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (factual findings supported by competent evidence not clearly erroneous)
- In re David W., 8 A.3d 673 (Me. 2010) (trial court discretion in choosing permanency dispositions)
- In re C.P., 132 A.3d 174 (Me. 2016) (permanency-guardianship appropriateness reviewed under court’s discretion)
Judgment affirmed.