In re Myra B., 2017 ME 174

Two children, Myra and Nicole B., were placed with their maternal aunt in April–May 2015 and later came into State custody due to jeopardy findings.
The children exhibited severe behavioral and mental-health problems (self-harm, aggression, hiding, psychiatric hospitalizations) tied to exposure to parental domestic violence and unsafe, unsanitary home conditions.
Foster placement improved their behavior somewhat, but the children continued to require consistent, informed, capable parenting to meet their specific needs.
The parents participated in services but made only minimal, inconsistent gains; the court found they could not empathize with or place the children’s needs ahead of their own and could not protect the children from harm.
The court found the home conditions remained unsafe and that parents lacked capacity to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs.
The District Court terminated both parents’ rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and adopted adoption as the permanency plan; the parents appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to establish parental unfitness/jeopardy	Parents argued evidence was insufficient to show unfitness supporting termination	State argued clear-and-convincing evidence showed unwillingness/unable to protect and take responsibility	Court: Evidence supported findings of jeopardy and at least one ground of unfitness; termination affirmed
Weight and credibility of witness testimony	Father challenged factual findings and credibility assessments	State: credibility/weight determinations are for trial court	Court: Trial court’s credibility and weight determinations upheld
Adequacy of Department’s reunification efforts (mother’s claim)	Mother contended DHHS’s efforts were inadequate, undermining the court’s findings	State argued reunification efforts were sufficient and inadequacy did not vitiate findings	Court: Mother’s claim unpersuasive; inadequate reunification argument did not render evidence insufficient
Best interests / permanency plan (adoption)	Parents argued termination and adoption not in children’s best interests	State argued termination with adoption best served children’s safety and need for permanency	Court: Discretionary best-interest determination supported; termination with plan of adoption proper

In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (standard for showing inability/unwillingness to protect and meet child’s needs)
In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (trial court credibility and weight determinations reviewed deferentially)
In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006) (reunification-effort adequacy does not automatically preclude termination)
In re I.S., 121 A.3d 105 (Me. 2015) (requirement to find at least one ground of parental unfitness)
In re Jazmine L., 861 A.2d 1277 (Me. 2004) (need to explain how parental deficits prevent meeting child’s individual needs)
In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (context for assessing parental capacity and best-interest determinations)
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (standards for terminating parental rights and selecting adoption as permanency plan)