In re Troy C.
196 A.3d 452
Me.2018Background
- DHHS became involved in Feb 2015 after reports of domestic violence and substance abuse; a preliminary protection order and conditions (including substance assessment and no contact with mother in child's presence) were imposed.
- Child returned to DHHS custody in April 2015 after further incidents; DHHS filed a termination petition in March 2016 which the court initially denied for both parents.
- At the 2016 hearing the court found the mother unfit (substance abuse, unable to care for child for nine months) and found the father had missed medical appointments and visits, but did not find the father unfit because the Department had not clearly identified steps he needed to take to reunify.
- The court issued a judicial review order outlining the father’s obligations (random drug screening, abstain from nonprescribed mood-altering substances, updated substance abuse evaluation); DHHS later filed a second termination petition in June 2017.
- After a two-day hearing the court found both parents unfit (mother: ongoing substance abuse and inability to provide safe care; father: inconsistent engagement, substance use, missed counseling) and concluded termination with a permanency plan of adoption was in the child’s best interest.
- Both parents appealed; father challenged unfitness findings and due process notice as to drug use, mother challenged the choice of termination over permanency guardianship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was competent evidence to find the father unfit | Father: court ignored evidence of significant reunification efforts | DHHS/court: evidence showed missed visits, inconsistent counseling, continued drug use | Court: Sufficient competent evidence supported father's unfitness findings |
| Whether father was denied due process because drug use wasn't listed in jeopardy order | Father: he wasn't notified that use of unprescribed stimulants would be basis for unfitness | DHHS/court: father was told to address substance use; drug issues were raised in petitions and review orders | Court: No due process violation; bases for unfitness need not be limited to earlier jeopardy order |
| Whether termination of mother's rights was in child's best interest versus guardianship | Mother: she was sober, out of custody, relatives could provide guardianship | DHHS/court: child needs permanent, definitive placement and has asked where he will live permanently | Court: Termination with adoption plan not an abuse of discretion; adoption better provides permanency |
| Whether court erred by considering evidence outside earlier orders | Father: implied objection that findings relied on matters not previously specified | DHHS/court: prior orders and petitions addressed substance issues; later evidence admissible | Court: Court may consider evidence beyond earlier orders; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dominyk T., 173 A.3d 1065 (2017) (standard for drawing facts from court record)
- In re Cameron B., 154 A.3d 1199 (2017) (trial court credibility and weight determinations are for factfinder)
- In re Child of Ronald W., 190 A.3d 1029 (2018) (standards of review for termination orders)
- In re Child of James R., 182 A.3d 1252 (2018) (bases for termination are not limited to earlier circumstances)
- In re David W., 8 A.3d 673 (2010) (state policy favoring stability and certainty in permanency planning)