IN RE CHILD OF KIMBERLEE C.
Docket: Yor-18-71
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
October 4, 2018
2018 ME 134
Reporter of Decisions; Submitted On Briefs: September 26, 2018
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Kimberlee C. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Springvale, Foster, J.) terminating her parental rights to her youngest child.1 She argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the court‘s finding of parental unfitness and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the termination of her parental rights. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The Department of Health and Human Services filed a child protection petition with respect to six of the mother‘s children, including the youngest child, in February 2016, when the youngest child was three years old.
[¶3] The Department petitioned for termination of the mother‘s parental rights on January 19, 2017. After a two-day testimonial hearing, by judgment dated February 1, 2018, the court terminated the mother‘s parental rights. See
After 2013 or so, [the mother] was the single parent of seven children, ranging in age from eleven years to less than one year old.
[The mother] was not particularly well-suited to the task at hand. She has long-standing mental health issues that she has attempted to address through counseling. . . . She also developed a substance abuse problem around the time [the five-year-old twins] were born, using opiates and pain medications. After [her youngest child] was born, she added intravenous heroin use to her list of behaviors.
. . . .
. . . The disclosures [that the children made about life in the mother‘s household] are overwhelming[ly] consistent over time and among the children; they have been made to caseworkers, foster parents, therapists and Child Advocacy Center interviewers. . . . Although all of these children have shared many of the same experiences, they have experienced them in different ways and responded in their own fashion. . . . [The youngest child] may have seen even less but was the subject of direct abuse by [a sibling]. The effect of that abuse, if any, is not yet known.
. . . .
It is clear that [the mother] has made sincere efforts to reunify with her children. She has participated in reunification and rehabilitation services recommended by the Department. She attended individual mental health counseling with [a counselor] for approximately one year but was unable to work on her own trauma history or make much headway on the issue of domestic violence. . . . The topic of [the mother‘s] complicity in the extensive abuse her children suffered has not yet been raised in therapy. [The mother] also periodically participated in substance abuse treatment. It was not a smooth process.
. . . .
Ultimately, however, the [c]ourt returns to [the neuropsychologist‘s] recommendation that any decision about reunification begin with an assessment of [the mother‘s] capabilities and the likelihood of success. . . . [The mother] does not have a history of healthy attachments to her parents or her partners. She has virtually no support network of family or friends. She has not been employed on a steady basis. She has struggled with substance abuse and mental health issues for many years, and been in and out of treatment programs. She has yet to address her own mental health issues. [The mother] has none of the indicia listed by [the neuropsychologist] as predictive of success in resuming healthy parenting of her children.
These children are stuck. They cannot go home; their mother is totally unprepared to manage their behaviors, respond to their accusations and reassure them of their safety.
[¶4] Based on these findings, the court found that the mother, despite her efforts, remains unable to protect the youngest child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child‘s needs. See
II. DISCUSSION
[¶5] The mother makes two arguments on appeal. First, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of her parental rights to the child. She argues that the court relied on speculative, unchallenged testimony from the Department‘s expert witness, a neuropsychologist, to find that the child was the subject of abuse at the hands of his siblings and that his mother failed to prevent this abuse. We review the District Court‘s findings of fact for clear error. In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430. “Deference is paid to [the District Court‘s] superior perspective for evaluating the weight and credibility of evidence.” In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114, ¶ 10, 775 A.2d 1144 (quoting In re Leona T., 609 A.2d 1157, 1158 (Me. 1992)); see also Dyer v. Superintendent of Ins., 2013 ME 61, ¶ 12, 69 A.3d 416. There is sufficient evidence to support each of these findings with regard to the specific abuse suffered by the child. The court, therefore, did not err in its conclusion that the mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for him within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child‘s needs. See
[¶6] Second, the mother raises a claim that her counsel at the termination
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Roger M. Champagne, Esq., Law Office of Roger M. Champagne, LLC, Biddeford, for appellant Mother
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services
Springvale District Court docket number PC-2016-10
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY