In re T.B., 65 A.3d 1282

Father has long history of substance abuse, mental health issues, crime, and incarceration, including a 2009 assault conviction and CODC program participation.
T.B. was born May 2010; DHHS obtained a preliminary protection order against the mother, who later consented to termination of her parental rights.
Father was confirmed as T.B.’s biological father in Feb. 2011 and obtained appointed counsel who was later replaced due to a deteriorating attorney‑client relationship.
Reunification efforts began in 2011 and continued after temporary incarceration for probation violations; T.B. was placed with father in Oct. 2011 but removed in Jan. 2012 after marijuana use violations.
After a new reunification plan in Feb. 2012 and further marijuana-positive tests, the Department filed a petition to terminate parental rights with a hearing set for June 21, 2012.
A motion to substitute or dismiss counsel was denied on June 19, 2012, two days before trial; the trial proceeded with the court denying requests to withdraw or continue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court abuse discretion denying substitution/dismissal of counsel on trial day?	Father	Court	No abuse of discretion
Did the court violate due process by not informing the father of proceeding without counsel when he sought substitution?	Father	Court	Not violated; father repeatedly sought counsel
Did due process require a sua sponte inquiry into whether the father wished to proceed unrepresented?	Father	Court	Not reached; record shows no intent to proceed unrepresented
Does a parent's right to court-appointed counsel in state-initiated child protection proceedings trump the state’s interest in child welfare when counsel is repeatedly sought but not appointed immediately?	Father	DHHS	Court did not violate; right to counsel remained evident
Was the court obligated to continue the trial or grant new counsel based on the circumstances and timing?	Father	Court	No error; trial proceeding within discretion

Hatch v. Anderson, 2010 ME 94 (Me. 2010) (indigent defendant's right to court-appointed counsel)
Danforth v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 303 A.2d 794 (Me. 1973) (due process in state-initiated proceedings)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (per se right to counsel in termination proceedings)
In re Christopher C., 499 A.2d 163 (Me. 1985) (benefits of representation in child protection matters)
In re D.P., 2013 ME 40 (Me. 2013) (protects children’s interests in protection proceedings)
In re Richard G., 2001 ME 78 (Me. 2001) (state interest in child welfare in proceedings)
In re Trever I., 2009 ME 59 (Me. 2009) (appellate review of presumed trial discretion in counsel issues)
Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 2005 ME 14 (Me. 2005) (treatment of counsel substitution and continuance in family matters)
State v. Dunbar, 2008 ME 182 (Me. 2008) (timing and tolerance of delays in court proceedings)
In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13 (Me. 2011) (colloquy requirement regarding ability to participate when medicated)
Holland v. Sebunya, 2000 ME 160 (Me. 2000) (continuance and substitution considerations in trial delays)
In re A.M., 2012 ME 118 (Me. 2012) (standards for termination and parental rights appeals)