203 A.3d 824
Me.2019Background
- DHHS filed child protection proceedings April 25, 2017 alleging maternal neglect; children placed in Department custody and jeopardy was later adjudicated due to maternal mental health, exposure to domestic violence, and unsuitable living conditions.
- Mother diagnosed with recurrent Major Depressive Disorder; experienced multiple hospitalizations and demonstrated chronic instability and inability to manage her mental health.
- Mother’s boyfriend (children’s custodian initially) physically abused children; mother threatened to kill/drown the children on one occasion and failed to protect them from partner’s maltreatment.
- Mother participated in reunification services intermittently but disengaged in October 2017, left the state, had extended psychiatric hospitalization, and had no contact with children for months before the termination hearing.
- Children have lived with the same foster family since May 2017, are bonded to foster parents, and are thriving; older child has additional trauma-related needs making permanency urgent.
- After a March 2018 petition to terminate parental rights, the District Court found by clear and convincing evidence three statutory grounds of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding mother "unwilling or unable to protect" children and that circumstances unlikely to change within a time meeting children’s needs | Mother argued she had participated in services until Oct 2017 and could become fit within a reasonable time | DHHS argued mother’s chronic, severe mental illness, threats, domestic violence exposure, hospitalizations, and disengagement made timely reunification unlikely | Held: Court’s finding supported by competent evidence; affirmed |
| Whether mother was unwilling or unable to take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet children’s needs | Mother contended she could assume responsibility if given more time | DHHS pointed to prolonged lack of progress, absence from children, and low likelihood of near-term improvement | Held: Court reasonably concluded mother could not meet children’s needs within a reasonable timeframe |
| Whether mother failed to make good faith efforts to rehabilitate and reunify | Mother cited prior participation in services | DHHS emphasized her abandonment of reunification efforts (leaving state, hospitalization, no contact since Oct 2017) | Held: Court properly found failure to make required good faith efforts |
| Whether the pending proceedings as to the older child’s father precluded terminating mother’s rights or rendered termination against children’s best interests | Mother argued termination premature because father’s rights remain and child not adoptable now | DHHS argued father’s status does not bar terminating mother’s rights and that termination serves children’s best interests given their need for permanency | Held: Termination of mother’s rights may proceed independent of father’s status; court’s best-interest finding not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (Me. 2017) (standard of appellate review for parental unfitness findings)
- In re Child of Ronald W., 190 A.3d 1029 (Me. 2018) (child-centered timing inquiry and deference to factfinder on credibility)
- In re Child of Troy C., 196 A.3d 452 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for best-interest determinations)