In re Stephen E., 186 A.3d 134

Mother moved from New York to Maine with the child in July 2016; Maine DHHS placed the child in protective custody after safety concerns and an open NY child‑protection case.
A December 2016 jeopardy hearing found the father had subjected the mother (and by extension the child) to long‑term domestic violence, including sexual assault, and had abandoned the child; the court relieved DHHS of reunification obligations as to the father.
DHHS filed a petition to terminate the father's parental rights in July 2017; father was served in New York.
Father’s counsel moved to withdraw in September 2017 due to lack of client communication; the court granted withdrawal and informed the father he could apply for new counsel.
Father did not request substitute counsel, did not seek a continuance, and did not appear at the November 15, 2017 termination hearing; the court held the hearing in his absence and terminated his parental rights under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a),(b)(i)–(iv).

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether father received ineffective assistance when counsel withdrew before the termination hearing	Withdrawal left father unrepresented; no case was presented at hearing	Withdrawal was permissibly granted after poor client communication; father had time to seek new counsel and did not do so	No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; judgment affirmed
Whether counsel’s withdrawal itself was deficient performance	Withdrawal was improper and violated professional rules; deprived father of counsel at critical proceeding	Withdrawal occurred with court leave, months before trial, and counsel was not a participant at hearing so cannot be faulted for later absence	Withdrawal did not establish deficient performance on the record
Whether father was prejudiced by lack of counsel (could not testify, present witnesses, cross‑examine)	Absence of counsel deprived father of ability to participate effectively	Father could have participated pro se or telephonically, had prior telephonic participation; he failed to request substitute counsel or other relief	No prejudice shown; father had opportunity and notice but was a nonparticipant
Whether UCCJEA challenge to jurisdiction amounted to ineffective assistance on appeal of jeopardy order	Counsel failed to raise UCCJEA jurisdiction challenge	UCCJEA does not apply to child protection proceedings; father failed to make prima facie showing	Court need not reach merits; no prima facie ineffectiveness shown

In re Tyrel L., 172 A.3d 916 (Me. 2017) (describes methods to raise ineffective‑assistance claims in termination appeals)
In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (sets standard for demonstrating counsel deficiency and prejudice)
In re Aliyah M., 144 A.3d 50 (Me. 2016) (requires affidavit stating specific basis for ineffectiveness claims)
In re T.B., 65 A.3d 1282 (Me. 2013) (parent may participate in proceedings without counsel, including telephonic participation)
In re Frederick P., 779 A.2d 957 (Me. 2001) (withdrawal by counsel not necessarily deficient where client conduct impedes representation)
State v. Nisbet, 134 A.3d 840 (Me. 2016) (conditions when immediate withdrawal may be appropriate to protect counsel’s obligations)
Lincoln v. Burbank, 147 A.3d 1165 (Me. 2016) (issues raised first in reply brief may be deemed waived)