In re Melissa F.
191 A.3d 348
| Me. | 2018Background
- Children in out-of-home placement since October 2016; termination petition initially denied in July 2017 but reheard in December 2017 after the court gave parents more time to remedy deficits.
- Court found parents had a 32-month history of housing instability (evictions, motel placements, arrearages), failed trial placements, and had not remedied jeopardy to the children (deprivation of adequate shelter).
- Parents did not sign reunification plans, missed court-ordered drug tests, poorly engaged with services, and the mother impeded reunification by refusing to provide whereabouts and making hostile comments to DHHS and the GAL.
- The children resided with a stable, resource (foster) family since October 2016 and had improved functioning in that placement.
- After a four-day December 2017 hearing the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds for parental unfitness and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests; judgment of termination was entered and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHHS/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether July 2017 denial barred evidence at Dec. 2017 hearing (res judicata) | Mother: portion of testimony at second trial barred by res judicata | Court: prior order expressly preserved later termination requests; later events admissible; court judicially noticed prior proceedings | Res judicata inapplicable; court correctly took judicial notice and considered post-July events |
| Whether competent evidence supported statutory grounds of parental unfitness | Parents: December 2017 evidence limited and insufficient; DHHS’s reunification efforts impeded their housing stability | Court: record (housing history, failures to engage, missed testing, deceit, lack of lease/address) met clear-and-convincing standard | Findings of unfitness supported by competent evidence; statutory grounds satisfied |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Parents: impugned weight given to DHHS efforts and effect on housing; argued uncertainty about post-July proof | Court: children needed permanence; stable foster placement, improved functioning, long delay (32 months) militated for adoption | Court did not abuse discretion; termination in children’s best interests |
| Whether mother should have been permitted to proceed pro se / whether trial judge was biased | Mother: trial court abused discretion by refusing withdrawal of counsel and judge’s comments showed bias | Court: no civil right to self-representation; standby counsel appropriate; mother was repeatedly disruptive; judge’s interventions were to maintain order | Denial of self-representation not an abuse; no judicial bias amounting to denial of fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (2017) (judicial notice of prior proceedings and scope of evidence addressed)
- Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (2010) (res judicata and caution in applying preclusion in domestic relations)
- In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (2018) (standards for judicial review of termination—clear and convincing evidence and abuse of discretion for best interests)
- State v. Hofland, 58 A.3d 1023 (2012) (framework on self-representation and standby counsel)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (standard for judicial bias requiring deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)