In re R.M.
2015 ME 38
| Me. | 2015Background
- Mother has five children; parental rights to a prior child were terminated in 2013 due to untreated mental health issues, lack of cooperation with DHHS, rejection of services, and abandonment.
- Mother has longstanding substance abuse, diagnosed PTSD, ADD, anorexia, history of domestic violence, and distrust of DHHS; these conditions affect emotional regulation and parenting capacity.
- While pregnant with R.M., mother concealed pregnancy, neglected prenatal care, used prescription opiates, and both mother and newborn tested positive for opiates at birth.
- DHHS obtained a preliminary protection order four days after birth and placed R.M. in foster care; a jeopardy order was entered in April 2014.
- Mother had no contact with R.M., refused to engage with DHHS or court proceedings, did not appear at the termination hearing, and DHHS petitioned to terminate parental rights on May 2, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DHHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 22 M.R.S. § 4055 for inability or unwillingness to protect the child | Mother offered no participation or defense (did not appear) | Mother’s prior history, untreated mental illness, substance use at birth, refusal to engage with DHHS show inability/unwillingness and low likelihood of change | Court found clear and convincing evidence of inability/unwillingness to protect and unlikely change; termination affirmed |
| Whether mother abandoned child and failed to make good-faith reunification efforts | No argument presented at hearing | DHHS argued mother abandoned child by having no contact and not engaging in services | Court found abandonment and failure to rehabilitate/reunify |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | No argument presented | DHHS argued termination served child’s needs given mother’s history and lack of engagement | Court held termination was in child’s best interest |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or its best-interest determination an abuse of discretion | No challenge preserved by appearance/briefing | DHHS relied on record and statutory factors to support findings | Appellate court found no clear error and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (standard for reviewing termination findings and clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Heather G., 805 A.2d 249 (Me. 2002) (scope of appellate review for parental-termination decisions)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (standard for reviewing best-interest determinations)
- In re Marcus S., 916 A.2d 225 (Me. 2007) (sufficiency of record to support termination by clear and convincing evidence)