In re Zoey H., 167 A.3d 1260

Mother appealed District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to infant Zoey H. under 22 M.R.S. § 4055, after a jeopardy finding and cessation of reunification efforts.
Mother had earlier had parental rights to an older child involuntarily terminated; Zoey was removed shortly after birth and never lived with her parents.
The Department alleged the mother engaged in substance abuse, unstable mental health, exposure to domestic violence, inadequate supervision/shelter, and failed to engage in reunification efforts.
The court found the mother had not contacted the caseworker after the jeopardy hearing, refused meetings, ignored attempts to develop a reunification plan, had not visited the child in over six months, and appeared unwilling to change.
The court found abandonment and multiple statutory grounds of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence and concluded termination was in the child’s best interest; foster and paternal relatives were willing to adopt.
Mother claimed due process violation for inadequate notice, improper reliance on her prior termination, and that the court merely adopted the Department’s proposed findings verbatim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice / Due process	Mother: insufficient notice of termination hearing deprived her of due process	DHHS: mother was served with petition, multiple notices and contacts; counsel participated; mother did not appear	Court: notice was adequate; mother received due process
Reliance on prior termination	Mother: court improperly relied on prior involuntary termination of older child	DHHS: prior termination was one proper factor among substantial other evidence of current jeopardy and abandonment	Court: consideration of prior termination was appropriate and not dispositive
Sufficiency of findings / adoption of proposed order	Mother: judgment simply adopted Department’s proposed findings verbatim, showing lack of independent judicial judgment	DHHS: court stated findings on the record, requested proposed order, and made changes before entry	Court: record shows court made on-the-record findings and altered the proposed order; findings satisfy law
Sufficiency of evidence / best interest	Mother: challenges sufficiency of evidence supporting statutory grounds and best-interests determination	DHHS: clear-and-convincing evidence showed abandonment, unwillingness/unability to protect child, failure to rehabilitate, and that termination served child’s interests	Court: evidence supports all statutory grounds and that termination was in child’s best interest

In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (standard for proving statutory grounds and best-interest determination in termination proceedings)
In re Heather C., 751 A.2d 448 (Me. 2000) (permissible use of prior termination in subsequent proceedings)
In re Marpheen C., 812 A.2d 972 (Me. 2002) (courts may consider proposed orders but must apply independent judicial judgment)
In re Kenneth S., 157 A.3d 244 (Me. 2017) (distinguishing permanency planning from adoption proceedings)
In re Scott S., 775 A.2d 1144 (Me. 2001) (harmless-error analysis in child protection context)