In re Tacoma M.
2017 ME 85
| Me. | 2017Background
- Child (Tacoma M.) was 12; placed in DHHS custody Jan 20, 2016 after father became homeless and left the child with his mother. Mother lived in Florida and had not seen the child for ~3 years.
- Mother admitted past oxycodone addiction, was receiving methadone and counseling; provided no consistent address and only sporadically engaged with DHHS; never visited the child or attended court in person.
- Parents did not appear at jeopardy hearing; court found both parents abandoned the child and relieved DHHS of reunification duties.
- DHHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights; at the termination hearing the child opposed living with his mother, recounted past drug- and violence-related experiences with her, and wished to be adopted by his foster father.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother abandoned the child, failed to protect him or take responsibility within a reasonable time, failed to make good-faith reunification efforts, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Mother’s counsel filed a no-merit brief and the mother did not file a supplemental brief; appellate court affirmed the termination judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother abandoned the child and failed to engage in reunification | Mother did not present arguments on appeal (no supplemental brief) | Record shows prolonged absence, minimal contact, and failure to reunify | Affirmed: abandonment and failure to reunify proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether mother could protect or assume responsibility within a time to meet the child’s needs | Mother asserted she was in treatment and employed (implicit claim of changed circumstances) | Evidence showed inconsistent address, sporadic contact, and past substance/instability | Affirmed: mother could not protect or assume responsibility in a timely manner |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest and adoption appropriate | Mother offered no contested best-interest argument on appeal | Child opposed return, favored adoption by foster father; GAL and DHHS supported adoption | Affirmed: termination and adoption plan are in child’s best interest (final adoption allocation reserved for adoption case) |
| Whether court erred in relieving DHHS of reunification services (cease-reunification order) | Mother did not preserve/press issue on appeal | Court issued jeopardy finding of abandonment and properly ceased services | Not addressed on appeal because termination affirmed; appellate court did not reach cease-reunification order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (standard for termination findings and clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Cameron Z., 150 A.3d 805 (Me. 2016) (analysis of abandonment and inability to alleviate jeopardy)
- In re Jazmine L., 861 A.2d 1277 (Me. 2004) (standards for termination where parent fails to reunify)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (best-interest determination supports termination and adoption)