In re Tacoma M.
160 A.3d 537
Me.2017Background
- Child (Tacoma M.), age 12 at hearing, had lived with father in Maine until January 2016 when father became homeless and asked the Department to take custody.
- Mother lived in Florida, had not seen the child for three years, had a history of opiate addiction, and gave inconsistent contact/address information to the Department.
- Court entered preliminary protective custody for the Department on January 20, 2016; neither parent appeared at the jeopardy hearing and the court found both parents had abandoned the child, relieving the Department of reunification obligations.
- Department petitioned to terminate parental rights; mother’s termination hearing occurred August 30, 2016. Mother testified she was on methadone and counseling but had limited engagement and disputed witnesses who reported intoxication in contacts with the Department.
- Mother never contacted the child despite having his contact information, participated in court events mostly by phone, and made only sporadic efforts toward reunification.
- Child lived with foster father since January 2016, recounted past exposure to drugs and violence with mother, did not want to live with her, and supported adoption by his foster father; Department and GAL supported adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 22 M.R.S. §4055 for inability to protect and abandonment | DHHS: mother unable to protect child, failed reunification, abandoned child; termination best interest | Mother: on treatment, employed, willing to care for child in Florida; disputed allegations of recent intoxication | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination for inability to protect, failure to reunify, and abandonment |
| Whether court abused discretion in finding termination in child’s best interest | DHHS: stability with foster father and child’s preference support adoption | Mother: argued reunification possible with treatment and contact | Affirmed: termination and adoption as permanency plan are in child’s best interest |
| Whether cessation of reunification services was improper after jeopardy finding | Mother: implied contest by appellate counsel (no supplemental brief) | DHHS: jeopardy finding relieved Department of reunification duty due to abandonment and nonappearance | Not reached on appeal because termination affirmed (court did not address cease reunification order on merits) |
| Whether trial court erred in relying on mother’s out-of-court contacts/witness testimony | Mother: denied recent substance abuse and disputed witness credibility | DHHS: presented witnesses describing intoxicated contacts; court found contradictions and credited witnesses | Affirmed: court’s credibility determinations supported by competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (2009) (standard for termination requires clear and convincing evidence and best-interest analysis)
- In re Cameron Z., 150 A.3d 805 (2016) (requirements for proving failure to alleviate jeopardy and reunification efforts)
- In re Jazmine L., 861 A.2d 1277 (2004) (abandonment and failure to protect analyses in termination cases)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (2005) (best-interest determination and discretion of trial court in termination/adoption decisions)