In re Shayleigh S., 198 A.3d 791

Mother and stepfather petitioned the Kennebec County Probate Court to terminate the biological father's parental rights to S.S. (age 17) and P.S. (age 7, with serious disabilities) to permit adoption by the stepfather. A one-day hearing occurred on May 16, 2018; the court conducted an in camera interview of S.S. the same day.
The probate court entered separate judgments terminating the father's rights to each child on May 30, 2018, applying the clear-and-convincing evidence standard and finding the father "unable or unwilling to take responsibility" within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs.
Key factual bases: the father had minimal contact after 2015 (one visit in August 2015; attempts in September 2015 he said were unsuccessful), ceased child support for almost three years despite ability to pay, and did not meaningfully engage in care or financial support—especially significant given P.S.'s special needs.
The court referenced statements S.S. made in camera (including that the father had grabbed her by the neck) and the mother's testimony about the same incident; the father admitted to picking up S.S. by the neck when she was twelve but disputed the context and force.
The father appealed, arguing (1) the probate court improperly relied on unsworn, uncross‑examined in camera statements by S.S., and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of parental unfitness.

Issue	Father's (appellant) Argument	Mother/Stepfather (respondents') Argument	Held
Use of in camera statements	Court improperly treated unsworn, uncross‑examined in camera statements by S.S. as testimony and relied on them	Statements were within scope of statute and duplicated by mother's sworn testimony	Court erred in treating in camera statements as testimony, but error was harmless because mother's sworn testimony duplicated content and father could and did testify in rebuttal; judgment affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence of parental unfitness (failure to establish relationship/support)	Father tried to visit and was obstructed by mother; his 2015 attempts suffice to show effort; mother moved without notice; evidence insufficient to show unwillingness or inability	Father had minimal contact for ~3 years, did not pay support despite ability, took no legal steps to remedy perceived obstacles; his conduct showed unwillingness/inability	Court reasonably could be persuaded by clear-and-convincing evidence that father was unwilling/unable to take responsibility in a time reasonably calculated to meet children's needs; finding sustained
Best‑interest analysis sequencing	(not raised on appeal)	Court addressed best interests before explicitly finding unfitness	Court acknowledged incorrect sequence but found no obvious error affecting fairness because required unfitness finding was made; harmless

In re Child of Portia L., 183 A.3d 747 (Me. 2018) (clarifying standard of proof in termination/adoption context)
Adoption of Isabelle T., 175 A.3d 639 (Me. 2017) (deference to trial court findings supported by any competent evidence)
In re M.B., 65 A.3d 1260 (Me. 2013) (harmless‑error review for inadmissible evidence duplicated elsewhere)
Greaton v. Greaton, 36 A.3d 913 (Me. 2012) (appellate rule that procedural error must be shown to have affected outcome)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (due process and prejudice requirement on appeal)
In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993) (admission of duplicative evidence may be harmless)
Adoption of L.E., 56 A.3d 1234 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for clear-and-convincing findings)
Adoption of Hali D., 974 A.2d 916 (Me. 2009) (requirement to find parental unfitness before best‑interest consideration)
In re Michelle W., 777 A.2d 283 (Me. 2001) (same sequencing principle)
In re Joshua B., 776 A.2d 1240 (Me. 2001) (obvious‑error review when sequencing not challenged)