In re Ryder C.
2017 ME 164
Me.2017Background
- Child (born at 32 weeks) has serious, ongoing medical and developmental needs requiring consistent, specialized care and frequent medical appointments.
- While in parents’ care the child experienced severe environmental failure to thrive, missed many medical appointments, and essentially gained no weight in his second year; a physician described the neglect as among the most severe in his 30 years.
- Mother had prescription medication abuse history; during a six-week trial return in spring 2016 she again missed crucial appointments, underfed the child (he lost weight), and misrepresented feeding to providers.
- Father has mental health issues, refused counseling required by his reunification plan, failed requested drug screens, missed most scheduled visits, and acknowledged he could not currently care for the child.
- Child was placed in foster care in August 2015; in foster care the child gained weight, made substantial developmental progress, and received required therapies and medical care.
- After a three-day hearing, the District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit (including under the statutory presumption in 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E)) and that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding parents unfit and inability to protect child from jeopardy | Parents contended the court erred; they love child and challenged sufficiency of unfitness findings | DHHS argued evidence of severe neglect, missed appointments, and parents’ failures support unfitness finding | Court held findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; parents unfit |
| Whether statutory presumption under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E) applied | Parents disputed application of presumption (arguing services or efforts were adequate or changed) | DHHS argued child had been in custody >9 months and parents made no significant effort despite services | Court applied presumption and relied on it to support unfitness finding |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Parents argued termination was not justified given parental love and potential improvement | DHHS argued termination necessary given child’s severe needs and parents’ failures to meet them | Court concluded termination serves child’s best interest given medical needs and foster placement stability |
| Whether trial reunification placement and other evidence required different outcome | Parents pointed to trial placement with mother as evidence of potential reunification | DHHS and court viewed the trial placement as unsuccessful and harmful (court called it “a mistake”) | Court found trial placement worsened child’s condition and did not change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (standard for reviewing termination and best-interest analysis)
- In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (presumption and timing standard for inability to protect child)
- In re Cameron Z., 150 A.3d 805 (Me. 2016) (deference to trial court on best-interest determination)