In re S.P., 2013 ME 81

Mother had long history of child-protective involvement in Florida and Maine; six older children were in state care and two had involuntary terminations of parental rights.
S.P. born May 2010; services and extensive efforts ordered despite mother’s history; child removed July 29, 2011 when mother planned to flee the state.
At 14 months in foster care, S.P. showed sexualized behaviors and extreme food-related difficulties; these problems later resolved in foster placement.
Evaluations (CANEP) found the mother had diffuse cognitive deficits and borderline personality symptoms; she failed to complete nonoffender treatment, moved frequently, and did not progress toward reunification.
Mother did not attend the termination hearing; her counsel attempted to withdraw and requested a continuance (both denied), presented no witnesses, and did not cross-examine the Department’s witnesses.
District Court terminated parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055, finding abandonment, inability/unwillingness to protect the child, failure to rehabilitate, and that termination served the child’s best interests; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Mother's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights	Termination not supported; mother challenges factual findings and best-interest conclusion	Mother repeatedly failed to complete services, exposed children to dangerous caregivers, and failed to progress; termination protects child’s need for permanency	Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported findings of abandonment, unfitness, failure to rehabilitate, and that termination is in child’s best interest
Due process / ineffective assistance of counsel for mother’s absence	Trial counsel ineffective for seeking withdrawal/continuance and for not cross-examining or offering evidence in mother’s absence	Mother voluntarily failed to appear; counsel’s motions were appropriate; mother offered no showing that cross‑examination or other advocacy would have changed outcome	Affirmed: no due-process violation; no demonstration of prejudice from counsel’s conduct and no adequate argument that different advocacy would have altered result

In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (appellate standard for harmless error where outcome unaffected)
In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450 (Me. 1986) (permitting consideration of deposition testimony for absent parent)
In re Trever I., 973 A.2d 752 (Me. 2009) (trial court’s discretion in scheduling and denying continuances in child-protection proceedings)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (requirement to show actual prejudice to prevail on ineffective-assistance claim in parental-rights cases)