ADOPTION OF ISABELLE T. et al.
Pen-17-237
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
November 30, 2017
2017 ME 220
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
Reporter of Decisions; Argued: October 11, 2017
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The father of Isabelle and Abigail T. appeals from a judgment of the Penobscot County Probate Court (M. Bradford, J.) terminating his parental rights in anticipation of an adoption pursuant to
[¶2] Because the record, in a case where fundamental constitutional rights are at issue, does not include sufficient evidence regarding parental unfitness, the best interests of the children, and the history of the prospective adopting parent, because the court improperly excluded thе father‘s testimony regarding his future plans for reunification with his children, and
I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS INCIDENT TO ADOPTION
[¶3] Examination of the issues in this appeal must begin with a review of the substantive and procedural requirements for a termination of parental rights incident to an adoption proceeding. When a private individual invokes court action to terminate parental rights or otherwise significantly limit a parent‘s rights to parent a child, the court engages in state action that implicates the constitutionally protected liberty interest a parent has in parenting his or her child free from state interference.
A. Constitutional Requirements
[¶4] “The liberty interest . . . of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests . . . .” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). We have consistently recognized that a biological parent has a fundamental liberty interest in parenting his or her child. Adoption of Tobias D., 2012 ME 45, ¶ 9, 40 A.3d 990. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects
[¶5] These requirements apply to actions in state courts, including the probate courts. See Guardianship of Chamberlain, 2015 ME 76, ¶ 23, 118 A.3d 229 (extensively discussing application of proper standards to protect fundamental parental rights in probate court proceedings affecting parental rights—there in a guardianship proceeding). See also In re H.C., 2013 ME 97, ¶ 11, 82 A.3d 80; In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450, 453 (Me. 1986).
[¶6] The fundamental right to parent one‘s child is not, however, immune from government interference. See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 12, 90 A.3d 1169 (action to establish de facto parent status); Rideout v. Riendeau, 2000 ME 198, ¶ 19, 761 A.2d 291
[¶7] “When the State does interfere with the fundamental right to parent, we must evaluate that interference with strict scrutiny—the highest level of scrutiny—which requires that the State‘s action be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Pitts, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 12, 90 A.3d 1169. Pursuant to this standard, only the most exceptional circumstances or risks to a child‘s welfare allow the state to intrude upon a parent‘s fundamental right to the care and control of his or her child. See id.; Rideout, 2000 ME 198, ¶ 24, 761 A.2d 291.
B. Adoption and Child Protection Statutes
[¶8] Section 9-204(b) of the Adoption Act,
[¶9] The Adoption Act provides that “[a] petition for termination of parental rights may be brought in Probate Court in which an adoption petition is properly filed as part of that adoption petition . . . .”
[¶10] Thus, theoretically, before the trial court considers the background and the qualities of a prospective adopting parent, the court could
[¶11] There is no state assertion of parental unfitness in private termination/adoption proceedings, and the Adoption Act provides fewer protections for parents than those provided in Title 22 child protection proceedings. Individuals facing the loss of their rights in Title 22 termination of рarental rights proceedings are nearly always provided opportunities for rehabilitation and reunification before a court even considers the termination of their parental rights. See In re Heather C., 2000 ME 99, ¶ 4, 751 A.2d 448 (“In the ordinary course, as soon as the child has entered foster care as a result of a court order, the [State] is required to begin providing rehabilitation services to the parents.“); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 26, 854 A.2d 195
[¶12] The Adoption Act, on the other hand, dоes not require—or even authorize—the court to consider rehabilitation or reunification efforts prior to terminating parental rights. See Adoption of L.E., 2012 ME 127, ¶ 13, 56 A.3d 1234; compare
[¶13] In a Title 22 child protection proceeding, the question of termination is addressed only after a court has decided that the parent‘s
[¶14] In the private adoption context, as is the case here, where there has been no previous determination of unfitness, a parent can have his or her parental rights terminated withоut any opportunities for rehabilitation or reunification. Thus, application of the Adoption Act, as written, poses a substantial risk to fundamental parental rights that the court must respect by rigorous application of quality of evidence standards and procedural protections as we have articulated in opinions such as Guardianship of Chamberlain, 2015 ME 76, 118 A.3d 229.4
[¶15] In the matter before us, we must consider whether the circumstances leading to this private adoption and termination proceeding
II. CASE HISTORY
[¶16] This appeal involves a private adoption proceeding and petition to terminate the father‘s parental rights brought by the mother and stepfather of Isabelle and Abigail T. They seek to terminate the parental rights of the children‘s biological father so that the children can be adopted by their stepfather.
[¶17] On May 4, 2016, the mother and stepfather filed a petition to adopt Isabelle and Abigail T. in the Penobscot County Probate Court. As part of these adoption proceedings, on August, 25, 2016, the mother and stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the children‘s father.
[¶18] A one-day hearing was held on February 28, 2017. During the hearing, the father testified that he began his relationship with the mother in 2006. They married in 2009, and the mother was soon pregnant with their first child, Isabelle. Throughout the relationship there was tension as a result of the father‘s dishonesty about jobs, finances, and education, and concerns about unfaithfulness. Their second child, Abigail, was born in 2012. At that point, their marriage was “on the rocks.”
[¶20] The father was released from incarceration in March 2015. Both the mother and the father testified that, after he was released, the father had weekly phone contact with Isabelle and Abigail for a period of time. In July 2015, the father was re-incarcerated after violating his probation. He is now expected to be released in April 2018.
[¶21] The father testified that he has, to the extent he has been able, attempted to get help to address his problems and has expressed his commitment to maintain а relationship with Isabelle and Abigail. His efforts to maintain a relationship with his daughters have been complicated by the protection from abuse order and by conditions of probation that limit contact with his children. When the father inquired about having contact with his
[¶22] Both the father and the mother testified that throughout the father‘s incarceration the children have had regular contact with the father‘s parents. The mother acknowledged that, because her parents are deceased, the father‘s parents are the only grandparents the children will ever have.5 The grandparents see the girls as often as they are able, given travel distances and the children‘s school schedules. The grandfather testified that he and his wife are concerned that their “rights as grandparents [would] be diminished” if the father‘s parental rights were terminated.
[¶23] The stepfather testified that he has three children from prior relationships: boys ages ten, ten, and eight as of the hearing date. The stepfather testified that his parental rights to two of his children, one ten-year-old and the eight-year-old, have previously been terminated. The stepfather further testified that one of the reasons that his parental rights were terminated was his significant alcohol and drug abuse problem.
[¶25] During the mother‘s and stepfather‘s direct examinations, they both testified regarding their future plans for Isabelle and Abigail. When the father was asked about his plans to reestablish a relationship with his children upon his release from prison, the mother objected on the ground that the question called for speculation. The court sustained the objection and excluded the question.
[¶26] On April 4, 2017, the court issued an order terminating the father‘s parental rights. In the order, the court found:
[The father‘s] failure to make any attempt to establish a family relationship with the child, or contribute in any way toward the children‘s financial support, constitutes clear and convincing evidence that the [father] has been unwilling or unable
to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children‘s needs.
The court also concluded that termination of the father‘s parental rights, “thereby freeing the children for adoption by the petitioners, is in the children‘s best interests.”
[¶27] In response to a motion by the father, the court subsequently issued findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its termination decision, as required by
[The father] sexually assaulted the 15-year-old daughter of the close friend he was staying with and has been convicted of felony sexual abuse of a minor.
The minor victim was a child who was a member of a house frequented by [the father].
[The father] is an incarcerated parent who, due to his parole6 violation, will not be released until April 2018 at the earliest.
Based upon [the father‘s] conviction and subsequent parole violation, as well as [his] failure to provide any support for or contact with his children, he is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for his children.
[The father] has failed to communicate meaningfully with the child for a period of at least six months (namely almost four years).
[¶29] The father timely appealed thе court‘s order terminating his parental rights.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
[¶30] We review factual findings that termination of parental rights was in the children‘s best interests for clear error and the ultimate decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion. In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 37, 65 A.3d 1260; In re Alivia B., 2010 ME 112, ¶ 12, 8 A.3d 625. We review factual findings that a parent is unfit or otherwise incapable of parenting for clear error and will determine that a finding is unsupported only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it; if the fact-finder clearly misapprehended the meaning of the evidence; or if the finding is so contrary to the credible evidence that it does not represent the truth of the case. Guardianship of Hailey, 2016 ME 80, ¶ 15, 140 A.3d 478. In addition, when fundamental rights are аt stake, findings may be determined to be insufficient or the court may be found to have erred in the exercise of its discretion if
[¶31] In this case, where the prospective adopting parent had a substantial history of substance abuse and had his parental rights terminated as to two of his three biological children, it is concerning that neither of the parties provided details of that history to the court. When a termination is being sought in order to facilitate an adoption, factual information about the prospective adoptive parent—the good and the bad—is vital to the determination of whether termination of a biological parent‘s parental rights is in the children‘s best interests.
[¶32] Before the state, acting through the courts, can interfere with the fundamental right to parent by terminating parental rights, due process requires that findings of unfitness be made by clear and convincing evidence. See Pitts, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 12, 90 A.3d 1169. Pursuant to the Adoption Act, which incorporates by reference
[¶33] We review the sufficiency of the evidence to determine “whether thе court could have reasonably been persuaded on the basis of the evidence in the record that the required factual findings were highly probable.” In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶ 18, 889 A.2d 297. The father argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting the court‘s findings of parental unfitness and its ultimate decision to terminate the father‘s parental rights as being in the best interests of his children.
1. Father‘s Imprisonment
[¶34] A court may not terminate parental rights based solely on a parent‘s incarceration. See In re Alijah K., 2016 ME 137, ¶¶ 13-16, 147 A.3d 1159. “We agree that a parent‘s incarceration is but one factor to be considered by a court faced with a termination petition, [although] it is a factor—a factor that may, in some cases, lead а court to terminate that parent‘s rights.” Id. Respecting the strong policies in favor of permanency, a court must consider whether the length of a parent‘s incarceration will prevent the parent from protecting the child from jeopardy or taking responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child‘s needs. See
[¶35] Here, the father is currently in prison. He is expected to be released in April 2018, approximately one year after the termination hearing was held. He has had no opportunity to receive rehabilitative services, and, as noted earlier, he has been prohibited from having contact with his children. Given аll of the circumstances of this case, we cannot affirm the conclusion that, as the court framed the issue, the fact of his incarceration and lack of
[¶36] In the private adoption setting, the permanency concerns that are typically present in state-initiated termination proceedings are not at issue. Here, the children are in a permanent living situation with their mother and stepfather, which, as all the parties testified, is not going to change regardless of the outcome of the termination and adoption processes.
2. Protection from Abuse Order
[¶37] “[A] parent‘s prohibition from contact with a child pursuant to a protection from abuse order or other court order, should not, standing alone, constitute abandonment.” Adoption of Lily T., 2010 ME 58, ¶ 21, 997 A.2d 722. Parents subject to protection from abuse orders are obligated to make even greater efforts to foster relationships with their children using the means available to them. See id.; see also Adoption of T.D., 2014 ME 36, ¶ 13, 87 A.3d 726.
[¶38] Here, the father has been subject to a protection from abuse order, and also, apparently, conditions of incarceration or probation, limiting his contact with his children. Despite the order in place, the father has made efforts to maintain contact with his children. During his first prison sentenсe,
[¶39] These actions and the father‘s own testimony demonstrate his desire and effort to maintain a relationship with his children. Despite all of the barriers in place preventing his contact with the children—the reasonableness of which we do not question here—the record reflects his efforts to maintain a parental relationship with his children. On this record, there is not sufficient evidence supporting the findings of parental unfitness, to the standard of clear and convincing evidence, to justify termination of the father‘s parental rights.
B. Issues Related to the Ultimate Determination that Termination of the Father‘s Parental Rights is in the Best Interests of the Children
1. The Court‘s Exclusion of Testimony Regarding the Father‘s Plans for Re-establishing Contact with His Children
[¶40] The father argues that the court erred and abused its discretion by sustaining the objection to questioning him regarding his plans to
[¶41] We review the trial court‘s determination that the necessary factual foundation to admit evidence has or has not been established for clear error, and its ultimate determination to admit or exclude the evidence for an abuse of discretion. Levesque v. Cent. Me. Med. Ctr., 2012 ME 109, ¶ 16, 52 A.3d 933. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
[¶42] Measured against this low relevancy standard, the exсlusion of the father‘s testimony regarding his plans to re-establish a relationship with his children was error. The court was required to decide whether the father was “unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and those circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child‘s needs” or was “unwilling or unable to take
[¶43] The father‘s testimony regarding his plans for re-establishing a relationship with his children was essential to the court‘s evaluation of whether termination of the father‘s parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. It is difficult to undеrstand how the court could have decided whether termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children, a decision that necessarily looks to the future, without hearing the father‘s testimony regarding his plans for a relationship with his children. The father‘s testimony regarding his plans for a relationship with his children also was relevant to the court‘s determination of parental unfitness, specifically whether, looking to the future, the father would be unable or unwilling to protect his children from jeopardy or take responsibility for his children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.
[¶44] The court‘s error in excluding the father‘s testimony regarding his plans to reestablish a relationship with his children was not harmless. See
2. Lack of Evidence Concerning the Stepfather‘s Prior Terminations of Parental Rights
[¶45] The evidence falls materially short of including the records, testimony, or other evidence regarding the prospective adopting parent‘s past history that should have been considered prior to terminating the father‘s parental rights. It is unclear why thеse records were not disclosed, but they were necessary for the court to have prior to determining the children‘s best interests. See In re Brandon D., 2004 ME 98, ¶¶ 13, 15, 854 A.2d 228 (vacating the court‘s judgment terminating the father‘s parental rights where the court‘s lack of findings concerning the children‘s best interests was in direct proportion to the lack of evidence presented by the prospective adoptive parents).7
In criminal cases, where self-defensе is an issue essential to the defendant‘s case, the court‘s failure to instruct on self-defense deprives the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Davis, 528 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Me. 1987). Further, in a post-conviction hearing where the court is asked to evaluate “claims of ineffective [assistance of counsel] arising from trial counsel‘s failure to present evidence to impeach witnesses who provide incriminating testimony, the court may consider factors such as the strength of the State‘s case, the effectiveness of the actual defense presentation, and the significance of the impeachment value of evidence that trial counsel failed to develop.” Theriault v. State, 2015 ME 137, ¶ 30 n.9, 125 A.3d 1163.
Although the present сase is not a criminal case, before terminating a parent‘s fundamental right to parent his or her children in order to permit those children to be adopted by a specific individual, the court cannot determine that adoption is in the children‘s best interest, to the standard of clear and convincing evidence, without having all of the necessary information about the prospective adoptive parent.
[¶47] This case appears to be a matter of first impression in requesting the court to terminate the parental rights of a father so that his children may be adopted by a stepfather who, when he was at about the same age as the father is now, had his parental rights terminated to two of his three children. Were the stepfather facing a state-initiated child protective proceeding, there could be a rebuttable presumption that he is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy because a “court has previously terminated parental rights to another child who is a member of the same family.” See
[¶48] Without sufficient background information and documentation regarding the stepfather‘s prior terminations of parental rights, we cannot affirm the court‘s final judgment terminating the father‘s parental rights. The court could not, without this information, find that termination of the father‘s
3. Best Interests of the Children
[¶49] In considering the children‘s best interests, the court is required to consider “the needs of the child[ren], including the child[ren]‘s age, the child[ren]‘s attachments to relevant persons, рeriods of attachments and separation, the child[ren]‘s ability to integrate into a substitute placement or back into [their] parent‘s home and the child[ren]‘s physical and emotional needs.”
[¶50] Isabelle and Abigail were seven and four years of age, respectively, at the time of the termination hearing. Both girls live in a stable, permanent family home with their mother and stepfather. The girls call their stepfather “Daddy” and he is a big part of their lives, acting as a father-figure for them in many ways. However, the lack of evidence regarding the
[¶51] Significantly, the record contains no evidence that the father ever harmed his children. The mother and the father both testified that, up until his arrest, the father was a good parent to his children and that there were no concerns about his parenting abilities. The reasons for the father‘s limited contact with his children since his arrest and incarcerations were insufficiently explored on this record. On this reсord, the evidence does not demonstrate, to the standard of clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the father‘s parental rights was in the children‘s best interests.
IV. CONCLUSION
[¶52] In these circumstances, neither the court‘s findings, nor the record upon which those findings are based, can support a determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father is an unfit parent or that the father cannot provide a nurturing parental relationship with his children once the relationship can be re-established. Further, the lack of sufficient evidence concerning the stepfather and the court‘s error in excluding the father‘s plans
[¶53] Accordingly, we conclude that the court‘s finding of parental unfitness and its determination of the children‘s best interests are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Therefore, the judgment terminating the father‘s parental rights must be vacated.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated. Remanded for entry of judgment denying the petition for termination of the father‘s parental rights.
Wayne Doane, Esq. (orally), Exeter, for appellant father
Kerry Clark Jordan, Esq. (orally), Griffin & Jordan, LLC, Orono, for appellees mother and stepfather
Penobscot County Probate Court docket numbers A-2016-48-1 and A-2016-49-1
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY