In re Z.S.
121 A.3d 1286
| Me. | 2015Background
- Mother appealed a District Court finding (Jeopardy under 22 M.R.S. § 4035) that her one‑year‑old child Z.S. was in circumstances of jeopardy.
- Court found mother concealed information, moved jurisdictions to avoid child‑protective involvement, and remained in a relationship despite reported domestic violence.
- Court found mother refused vaccinations (stated “I do not believe in viruses”), denied antibiotics on belief that the mind cures all, and failed to seek treatment for the child’s hernia.
- District Court removed the child and granted custody to the Department under 22 M.R.S. § 4036, ordering a full medical evaluation and that the Department “approve such vaccinations as are deemed essential by the pediatrician.”
- Mother appealed both the jeopardy finding and the vaccination/dispositional directive.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for jeopardy finding | Evidence insufficient to prove jeopardy | District court’s factual findings supported by competent evidence | Jeopardy finding affirmed (preponderance standard) |
| Order directing Department to approve vaccinations over mother’s objection | Court erred; vaccinations are parental choice and not emergency/ordinary care the Department may order | Custodian (Department) has right to make medical decisions for the child in its custody; dispositional orders under §4036 are not appealable | Vaccination directive not reviewable on this appeal; court declines to address asserted error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.E., 97 A.3d 1082 (Me. 2014) (standard of review and preponderance standard for jeopardy findings)
- In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012) (disposition after jeopardy finding is not appealable)
- In re Matthew W., 903 A.2d 333 (Me. 2006) (limits on Department authority for certain medical decisions; DNR context and due process concerns)
- Hinkley v. Hinkley, 749 A.2d 752 (Me. 2000) (custodian rights to make medical decisions)
- In re Johnna M., 903 A.2d 331 (Me. 2006) (Department cannot convert dispositional issues into an appeal of the jeopardy finding)
- Guardianship of Chamberlain, 118 A.3d 229 (Me. 2015) (continuum of parental‑rights decisions and varying due‑process protections)
- In re Christmas C., 721 A.2d 629 (Me. 1998) (procedural protections required before termination of parental rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing evidence requirement before terminating parental rights)