*1 Accordingly, the trial court did tations. Al- granting its discretion in
not abuse summary judgment.
bert’s motion for Judgment
B. The Motion for Relief from
and Motion to Amend The Giles contend error in
trial court committed reversible amend and motion
denying their motion to review a judgment.
for relief from We 60(b) a rule motion
trial court’s denial of an abuse of discretion.
for clear error or Katz, P.A., 648 A.2d Lipman
Scott v. & (Me.1994). Contrary to the Giles’ pay court did not suffi
contention allegations factual
cient attention to their correctly apply did not well-settled law decisions, plain language May denying
court’s order 60(b) makes clear that the
Giles’ motion argu considered the Giles’ properly and did not abuse its discretion or
ments Accordingly, clear error. See id.
commit affirm court’s denial of the Giles’
we judg
motions to amend and for relief
ment. entry is: affirmed.
Judgment 54ME
In re NATASHA S. Judicial Court of Maine.
Supreme 20, 2007. on Briefs: Dec.
Submitted 20, 2008.
Decided: March
603 CLIFFORD, LEVY, Majority: GORMAN, SILVER, MEAD, and JJ. SAUFLEY, C.J. and Dissent: ALEXANDER, J.
SILVER, J. mother of Natasha adoptive entered appeals judgment S. J.) (Fort Kent, Daigle, ter- District Court rights pursuant minating (2007). adoptive M.R.S. court erred in mother contends admitting Compact Interstate (ICPC) study home Placement Children showing compli- other than purposes for agree ance with the ICPC. We admitting study court erred purposes beyond permitted by those statute, and therefore must vacate the we judgment court’s and remand for further proceedings.1
I. BACKGROUND grand- Janice S. is the maternal adoptive mother and mother of Natasha Boston, and lives in Massachusetts. Na- ten-year-old girl multiple tasha is a diagnoses, including post- mental health disorder, oppositional de- traumatic stress disorder, fiant reactive attachment disor- der, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, type. combined Natasha’s bio- Dunleavy, Dunleavy James M. Esq., serious, logical mother had untreated sub- Offices, Isle, ME, Presque Law for the issues, adopted stance abuse Janice mother. September 2000 after her bio- Rowe, General, Attorney G. Steven parental rights were ter- logical mother’s Stuver, Gen., Atty. ice Assist. for the De- minated.
partment of Health and Human Services. brought In Janice October emergency team Natasha to an services Dubois, Caribou, ME, Esq.,
Richard of Nata- for a medical evaluation because Ad Litem. Guardian had disturbing behaviors. Natasha sha’s SAUFLEY, C.J., toward reportedly exhibited cruel behavior Panel: LEVY, feces, CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, smearing been animals and bin, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, stealing the trash eating food from JJ. arguments merit our discussion. 1. None of the mother’s other school, years, next four During two children’s lunches other judicial hearings review were uncontested de- hoarding food in her room. Natasha’s orders, held. all four review prompted behaviors teriorating of Natasha placement reaffirmed the in Maine with her send Natasha to live *3 custody and found Department’s the made this deci- biological mother. made reasonable ef- Department the had biological the sion because she believed family. the reunify and rehabilitate forts longer abusing substances mother was no with regard compliance With de- biological felt that the mother so she first plan, the court found on the the case to take care of and raise served a chance judicial compliance that her three reviews Natasha. the fourth found that “good,” was but on “fair.” the compliance been brought biological The mother judicial generated review order with unit at psychiatric Natasha to a child order, found that her termination August Northern Maine Medical Center compliance “unacceptable.” 2004, trying to after she found Natasha Department process May a kitten. In the of examin- On hang [¶ 7] paren- petition filed a to terminate Janice’s Natasha, the medical staff discovered ing alleged that rights. Department tal bruising on Natasha. Natasha significant that she had Janice had not demonstrated biological mother caused the said her effectively necessary to gained the skills bruising by hitting her with a belt. daily and that parent Natasha on a basis 2004, the District In November [¶ 5] difficulty under- to have she continued found that Natasha would be Court standing scope of Natasha’s disabili- left circumstances alleged that Department ties. The jeopar- By agreement parties, care. of the and emo- significant Natasha’s behavioral adjudicated “threat of failure to dy was as required that she be tional deficits allowing due her child to return protect, living environ- permanent in a and stable could be mother’s care where the ment all of her needs biological to her where managed appropriately. abused.” subsequently physically child was and Hu- Department The Maine Health At the on the termination custody of Natasha. man Services assumed an Inter- Department offered petition, reunification, purposes of For on the Placement of Chil- Compact state “participate ordered Janice to study report from the State of dren home releases, all counseling sign with exhibit.2 Janice ob- as an that, participate ground with on the jected visitation the offer 4007(4) (2006),3 § pursuant to 22 M.R.S. a month.” daughter up to twice language to the case or is relevant instant Based on their conclusions from the home 2. analysis. changes our study report, the Massachusetts place- of Social Services did not recommend 4007(4) provides: § 3. 22 M.R.S. with Janice in Massachu- ment of Natasha face, ICPC, only applies to on its setts. The Compact on Placement of Chil- Interstate placement of children in foster the interstate provisions of the Interstate dren. The homes, Children, possible adoption and does care or sec- Compact on Placement of “placement” of children expressly apply proceed- cover tions 4191 to shall parent. Any report chapter. 22 M.R.S. sub- ings with their under this 4007(4)(2006). compact be pursuant was amended to the shall This section mitted P.L.2007, (effective purposes of indi- § 4 in evidence for 2007. See ch. admissible compact and 2007). cating compliance with the September None of the amended so that she any purpose other interest was inadmissible perma- adoption than to the ICPC. made available for show over nency placement. The court admitted the exhibit objection. ice’s timely appeal, this Janice filed Termination of challenging the court’s admission strongly guard- was not advocated study other than purposes home litem, worker, ian ad the social the ICPC. showing compliance with therapist. guardian reluctantly sup-
ported petition for termination: II. DISCUSSION
This reluctance is due to the affection A. of Review Standard *4 that Natasha has for ... There is a them. I believe Janice bond between previously We have not [¶ 13] ... Natasha’s at heart has best interests the to address the admissibili opportunity manage and that can she believes she ty study report generated pur a home of as Natasha’s needs well as her own. to the the substance suant ICPC. Whether History, ongoing of the needs Nata- study report is admissible of the home strongly suggest sha that she will not be 4007(4) § 22 pursuant evidence to M.R.S. able to do so.... de question is a of law that we review S., 2001 ME novo. See In re Scott The social worker observed that [¶ 10] ¶ 10, “In construing A.2d 1148. 775 developing Natasha “is a more secure at- statute, plain a first look to the mean we tachment with and that to inter- [Janice] statutory language give to effect ing of the rupt way a total would be ... intent; only meaning if the of legislative to interests],” [contrary to her “that [termi- unclear will we examine oth the statute is traumatic,” significantly could be nation] v. legislative er indicia of intent.” State greater and that it would deleterious “have ¶ Moulton, ME A.2d 704 may effect ... even to tha[n][he] be able statutory language pro 365. The relevant predict.” therapist expressed The concern pursuant to the vides: “a submitted ability independently apply for Janice’s pur compact is admissible skills of parenting setting her home the poses indicating compliance with Yet, custody. Natasha returned to her may rely the court on evi compact and termination, endorsing rather than the value.” probative dence to the extent its therapist encouraged “[appropriate ongo- added.) 4007(4) (emphasis § 22 M.R.S. ing (preferably wrap-around) sup- service ports,” “at compre- least extended and itali- The issue is whether the hensively planned home-based services.” language for the admissibili- provides cized contained in the one-day hearing, ty After a of evidence beyond the issue of terminating goes court entered an order language is found ice’s to Natasha. The court found the ICPC. Similar (1) 4007(2), with the ad- unwilling or to section which deals Janice is unable with children and missibility and the of interviews protect Natasha may admit and consid- unlikely change are with- states: “[t]he circumstances of out-of-court reasonably calculated to er oral or written evidence in a time frame (2) child, may rely needs, made termination statements meet Natasha’s probes extent in the best on that evidence parental rights of Janice’s is probative value. may rely the extent of its on evidence to 4007(2) (2006) persuad- has the burden of State [T]he tive value.” M.R.S. added). highly probable it that the ing Aided the word us that is (emphasis parents or “that,” prejudice error did not clearly the italicized clause modifies to the result in the case. clause and does not confer an contribute previous persuasion high. is for the ad- State’s burden independent separate basis Any will be resolved in beyond previ- of evidence what the doubt mission favor of Thus, parent. although allows. ous clause present clause at issue in the case lacks Thus, entire record to ... we review the “that,” likely that the the word it seems prejudiced the error determine whether have the Legislature intended for presentation of their parents However, written, as same effect. to affect the potential case or had the 4007(4) meaning arguably of subsection case. In the absence of outcome of the to look at ambiguous, so we choose is, certainty, that a determi- substantial legislative other indicia of intent. that the highly probable, nation that it is no effect and did prejudicial error had legisla relevant outcome, not affect the we will vacate of Fact that history tive is the Statement judgment. *5 “reports as a result of provides: produced W., 2001 ME (quoting Id. In re Michelle ad compact request an interstate will be ¶ 286) 283, 123, 12, (emphasis 777 A.2d testimony missible in evidence without added). compact administra from the out-of-state indicating purposes for the limited of tor R., we Elijah In In re L.D. compliance compact.” with the where the found that error was harmless (111th
21666, Legi Fact Statement of evidence, court relied on inadmissible s.1984).4 that, in This statement confirms by oth duplicated the information was testimony the absence of from Massa 282, in the record. 620 A.2d er sources administrator, study re chusetts the home (Me.1993). Contrary to the De 285-86 solely compli to show port is admissible contention that the evidence partment’s must therefore ance with the ICPC. We by the trial report upon from the relied by ad conclude that the trial court erred and therefore harm court is cumulative mitting purposes beyond less, no in the record to there is evidence act, related to with the those view, light in of particularly that report in its determination using by In re proof required of the standard of fitness and best interests ¶ J., 148, 14, 804 A.2d at Rachel 2002 ME child. information re only source of 423. The provided social services garding the B. Harmless Error are response Massachusetts pursuant made to reports from the must next determine wheth 16] We Further, inability apparent In re caused was harmless. ICPC. er the error ¶ as J., 148, 14, appropriate make use of services 804 A.2d to Rachel 2002 ME to inability unwillingness proof of her In the context of a termination 423. in figured prominently we have care for Natasha rights proceeding, analysis. final the court’s stated: P.L.1985, P.L.1983, Legislature the conflict in ch. corrected was enacted as 4. The bill 4007(4) A, conflicting § was enacted 4. A section ch. Pt. 41. chapter law that session. The another order, Services, mul- and the its the court made of Social State of Health and Hu- tiple Department references to the contents of the Maine year period, man a four study report home fact: Services over findings gained ability provide to she has not 9. Massachusetts of Social primary for Natasha’s needs as completed study Services an home caretaker, any to nor is there evidence January 2006. The ability suggest gain that she will study indicates ... has future. foreseeable few, any, changes made in her life added.) ability (Emphasis evidence her access services a timely herself, manner even those examples There are several services which address basic needs such findings the court’s where the ICPC find- as health care and assistance. Said ings were intertwined with other evidence fuel report did not recommend that Natasha the record. court did hear in Massachu- [Janice] any therapist, social work- setts. er, or other individual who had visited the 10. In addition to making prog- little mother’s home or evaluated her in Boston. Instead, ress toward the rehabilitation and reuni- appears have relied fication in protection this Maine child study report, on the home which 12, 2004, August case since the date of included records from The House for Lit- Preliminary Order, Wanderers, Protection to Au- organiza- tle a social services gust Roslindale, the date of the pro- tion in Janice, the Petition for Termination of Parental supports vided in-home to make Rights, there was presented findings ability about Janice’s home and *6 that Janice ... received home-based parent Natasha. therapy services and individual to assist Dubois, Pamela the Maine to meet for a [Janice] Natasha’s needs worker, DHHS testified that her concerns year period two from the Massachusetts ability parent about Janice’s Department of In spite Social Services. study. were on the based ICPC She testi- provided of services to her for a total of struggled disorgani- fied that “Janice with a four-year period, jeopardy has not zation. She had lost her Massachusetts case,
been ameliorated in this nor is kept health benefits because she her bills any objective jeop- there indication that opened a box. She hadn’t them. She ardy will be in the ameliorated near applied heating had not for assistance —for future. winter. She had no source of income. last up disability had not followed on her
She 12. ... Janice has demonstrated her language regarding exact claim.” The inability nurturing to be a consistent concerns in the is as these ICPC parent provide for or to a sta- follows: her, placement
ble for with consistent 6/27/2003, applica- an On Janice obtained structure, provide posi- and to effective Security Disability Insur- tion for Social her, discipline prevent tive for or to completed to have ance. She claimed from mental health crises. writing, as of this application, Although receiving support. ... of- she is not 18. Janice has been application that her was denied. participated fered and services at ice said However, through she has not followed through least to a certain extent both to date.... appeals process with the the State of Massachusetts therapist and form. Natasha’s Again, inability to either find or some in- were sometimes paperwork has led to her this worker concerned complete (Mass Health) satisfy this being surance shut off. Janice unable yet applied not need of Natasha’s.... As of she had 12/2005 Janice has a box of Fuel Assistance.... contrast, In direct Dubois testified in her bedroom that she has been bills inter- opportunity she had the to observe pay. unable to actions Janice and Natasha between “very appropriate. them as provide Dubois did not a basis for this described very one another.” They’re loving other than the towards portion of her similarly: testified testified Natasha’s social worker report. No other witnesses enough sign “I ability specific to access these believe there has been to Janice’s and affection between [Janice] nurtwrance services. that if she were to feel that and [Natasha] testimony that Despite Janice’s her, that, indefinitely contact she lost currently have health insurance does yes, (Emphasis that would be traumatic.” Massachusetts, Dubois from the state of added.) testified that Not one witness knowledge of testified that she had no needs for failed to meet Natasha’s Janice health insurance status and had finding appears therefore affection. This recently, though not asked about even solely, if not on the primarily, to be based passed seven months had since Massachu- negative character- report. Such a setts conducted its assessment. Janice, moreover, highly prej- ization of claim pending testified that she has a not udicial and therefore harmless. Security In- Security Supplemental Social of an come and has secured the services relied Because the court attorney pursue appeal. She weight to upon and accorded substantial testified that she is now enrolled home the information contained program for the heating state’s assistance and conclu study report findings for its however, court, upcoming did winter. law, can no sions of there substantial progress mention preju did not have certainty that the error meeting findings, her own needs and that it did not affect the dicial effect largely been based appear which have the extent of the Evaluating outcome. *7 report, on that she was unable the ICPC merely and we are speculative harm is in manner.” timely to “access services a in to resolve this doubt therefore'bound J., In re favor of the mother. Rachel Finally, finding the court’s about ¶ 14, According at 423. ME 804 A.2d inability “nurturing” par- to be a not the error was ly, we conclude in the record appears ent to no basis have the judgment and harmless vacate in following language other than the making this decision we do trial court. report: ICPC intend, to offer argues, as the dissent to- very ... is not affectionate Janice of the extent to suggestion view or always Natasha has wards Natasha.... rely offering opinions may witnesses which affection to Janice. express tried to sup inadmissible evidence on otherwise encounters, would During these Janice port opinion. their away from Natasha or sometimes lean her, acknowledge that there etc. stop hugging We ask her record, case, absent when be sufficient evidence or not it is still the Whether DSS, for the trial court report, Na- the ICPC family involved with this was an findings required affection make the tasha was a child needed home, sufficiently ter she functions well order of termination of Janice’s classes, regular therefore remand and direct in rather than rights. participate We classes, the trial court to act within its discretion to at her special education separate (1) without the either: consider the record school. findings, testimony, ICPC or additional has biological mother [¶27] Natasha’s (2) or, days; a
within 30 hold new relating serious issues to substance abuse days if within 30 it deems additional testi- After the physical and abuse children. mony necessary, admitting to be without Department of Social Ser- findings; ruling. and issue a new (DSS) custody intervened and took vices entry is: became a foster Janice first Judgment vacated and remanded to the adopted Sep- and then Natasha parent proceedings District Court further con- mother’s biological tember after the opinion. sistent with this terminated. re- were DSS mained -with and Natasha involved Janice ALEXANDER, J., with whom after the adoption. SAUFLEY, joins, dissenting. CJ. testimony indicated that [¶ 28] Janice’s I I respectfully dissent. concur had exhibited cruel behavior to- admitting that the District Court erred in animals, room, set a fire in her ward considering the Massachusetts ICPC bathroom, smeared feces chewed on report purposes. for substantive Howev- dolls, food, damaged stolen and en- er, the information was gaged in other destructive behavior. For dated and its relevant content dupli- time, a Natasha was out of care higher quality cated the much program in a treatment residential of more recent events that the court heard Following Natasha’s re- Massachusetts. workers, workers, from DHHS social treatment, turn to from residential Janice litem, therapist, and, guardian ad most relationship between Janice and DSS significantly, higher Janice herself. That Apparently, many appoint- deteriorated. quality fully sup- and more recent evidence counseling of ments for care and ports the findings District Court’s and Natasha were missed or cancelled. capable Janice is not now and will not be Janice, testimony, missing admitted to parenting caring for Natasha or “once or twice.” appointments scheduled protecting her from within a time appointments She blamed most missed reasonably calculated to meet the child’s caregivers. Janice also testified 4055(l)(B)(2)(b). See M.R.S. needs. disagreed ap- with DSS treatment considering Accordingly, error proaches for Natasha and that Natasha is harmless. *8 “just getting to be worse.” seemed Let us look at the substantial [¶ 26] (GAL), guardian of evidence in the record that The ad litem volume Court, by the District indicated separate sup- appointed from the ICPC and therapy unfit- that Janice had terminated ports the District Court’s 2004, April in after six through That demonstrates DSS finding. ness participation “intermittent” grandmother the maternal months of that Janice S. is Boston, therapy sessions. The GAL in Massa- in scheduled of Natasha S. She lives by 2004 was indicated that “Janice ten-year-old girl is a also chusetts. Natasha helping in Nata- having al- almost no success multiple diagnoses, mental health with sha with her behaviors.” from her current fos- deal though, with 2004, May “good,” In was in the fourth found that [¶ Natasha’s behavior but 30] deteriorating compliance and “fair.” the relationship her had been In judicial to generated with caused Janice send Natasha review order at the DSS order, biological to with her same the termination the live Maine abusive time as compliance testified made court that her “un- mother. Janice that she found was acceptable.” this because she the occurred of decision believed bio- This because logical longer abusing declining mother was no sub- of visits with number Natasha, which, a chance stances and deserved to take care as with the missed coun- Massachusetts, seling of Natasha. and raise sessions primarily blamed others. on after [¶ Two months Janice sent 31] Maine, May the mother the biological Depart- Natasha On brought psychiatric petition Natasha to the child ment filed a to terminate Janice’s unit alleged at Northern Maine rights. Department Medical Center disruptive where she was admitted be- Janice had not demonstrated that she diagnosis signifi- gained necessary haviors after of several skills the effec- tively parent daily cant of process mental conditions. the Natasha on basis and Natasha, examining difficulty the medical staff dis- that she to have continued under- bruising significant standing covered Natasha. the of Natasha’s scope on disabili- biological alleged Natasha said her caused ties. also Department mother her bruising by hitting significant a belt. Natasha’s behavioral and emo- with Upon hospital report, De- that she required the Maine tional deficits partment permanent living Health and in a of Human Services stable environ- (the custody took ment of needs Department) temporary where all her could be managed of appropriately. Natasha. custody August
[¶ In November At the 32] the Department properly Natasha was awarded to the trial court admitted agreed jeopardy Jeopardy an order. from the court-ap- considered evidence GAL, adjudicated pointed was as “threat therapist of failure Maine who Natasha, protect, allowing her due to child to return had worked with both Janice mother, biological to her mother’s Natasha’s prior care where the foster current mother, subsequently physically child abused.” foster and Janice herself. The reunification, offered, Department For over purposes Janice’s ob- “participate jection, report. Although Janice to ordered releases, sign counseling purpose with all was inadmissible visitation other than to participate show with ICPC, daughter a month.” that the up to twice is uncontested Massachu- report, demonstrating compliance setts two During years, the next four ICPC, with the that DSS stated would judicial hearings review were uncontested custody allow Janice to have Natasha orders, held. In all four review were returned Massachusetts. placement reaffirmed objections ice’s not directed this were custody Department’s and found conclusion, to the information about had made ef- reasonable *9 Janice and Natasha contained within the family. reunify forts to and rehabilitate the report. to Janice’s regard compliance With much cur- plan, Having the case the court found in the first available more reported than judicial compliance three that her rent information was reviews testimony and of the GAL report, the GAL observed all, by Jan- barely, manage supported ice “is if at able to her the social worker was include, testimony, a which demonstrated maintaining own needs. These ice’s own household, present incapacity financial and health similar and future addressing adopted daughter’s for or address her reported plan care needs.” The GAL further manage problems Natasha’s blamed most of the Janice is “unable to needs. She response compliance needs as as her own.” In to in her with rehabilitation well reunification indi- programs on others and questions asking from Janice’s counsel of tim- significant knowledge lack of “improvement whether there had been cated key in her care for compared ing deterioration” to Janice’s cir- events example, “I she reported, cumstances the GAL Natasha. For nearly of Natasha two improvement adoption am unconvinced as to on date of her actually it had oc- part years of Janice ... to deal with or after 2000 when curred, DSS, in and she denied that understand Natasha’s needs.” Asked that she had and ne- apparent improvement about an Janice’s had found abused plan glected asserting with the case since the she May filing pa- “just of the termination of received foster care 2002.” rights petition, rental observed GAL to her Janice also testified as that, participation 11th hour does “[t]his care in plans for return of Natasha many not redress the fact that she missed Massachusetts, despite knowledge that visits with Natasha as a result of trivial [a Al- prohibit would such a return. DSS argument biological with the mother].” though regular was in school Maine, classes in Janice testified that she testimony court also heard special in a needs class in place would worker, from the social Pame- school, she’s in Massachusetts. “When Dubois, poor par- la who discussed Janice’s her, know, you up protect to the school to enting skills and disorganization testified special needs class.” Janice also difficulties problems present these would at might that she move to Maine some properly caring for Natasha. Some of future, point in the unspecified Dubois’ was based on direct pending had resolved a social after she Janice; dealings with and observations of up title to the security claim and cleared some of it have been based on infor- living. Janice testi- home where report. mation in the ICPC The Court past from her fied that she had learned suggests relying that a witness on the try to Natasha and would problems with opinion to arrive at an better, short but her statements were do the witness testifies about court was change. specific plans on error. so. improper and Not Witnesses presented by testify opinions regularly in court Evidence was also who therapist. Maine rely reports hearsay and other Janice and Natasha’s termination, of he process developing supportive their While not part as that, years four of efforts Receiving considering opin- despite conceded opinion. not therapy, Janice “does live who their in education ions from witnesses base conceptual grasp clear opinions, their in demonstrate supporting conclusions to par- of ideas goals application or other or facile part, reports on review of written application and that his enting practice,” M.R. inadmissible evidence is error. not been suffi- 703; therapy techniques “has Murray, Field & Maine Evi- Evid. (2000 ed.1999). capably demonstrate cient for Janice to § 703.2 at 369-74 dence *10 recent information also similar to more requested of her to assure effec- the skills reported to the court the GAL. with Natasha. tively organized parenting relate, she as well to other needs This number 13 stated that: Finding therapist personally.” still faces offered Janice ... has been Although that, “I reported September since a at least to participated services change ... observed substantial have not through extent the State certain both in dealing of skills her demonstration of Social Massachusetts needs.” with Natasha’s Services, Depart- and the State of Maine and Human Services ment of Health hearing, After the the court en- year period, a four she has over paren- an order to terminate Janice’s tered ability provide for Nata- gained the order, the rights tal to Natasha. In its caretaker, primary needs as her sha’s requisite findings on all of court made the suggest that nor is there evidence to of its fifteen find- the critical issues. Two ability that in the foresee- gain she will to the contents of ings included references future. able study. Finding number 9 stat- the ICPC finding supported this is While ed: study, in the it is also by information Department of Social Massachusetts by independent evidence from supported completed study an ICPC home Services The most the GAL and Janice herself. that January report 2006. The finding address- part critical number ... study that Janice indicates ing about the time from mid-2004 evidence few, any, in her life to changes made looking to the date of the ability to access services future, necessarily is based the foreseeable herself, those timely manner for even study, other than the ICPC on evidence needs such services which address basic primarily referenced information which and fuel assistance. Said as health care finding past. from the No other did not recommend that Natasha report referenced or was reliant on Massachu- study. [Janice] setts. The court terminated 46] [¶ (1) unwilling rights, finding that infor- finding reported old 42] This [¶ jeopar- protect unable from the that was mation unlikely are dy and the circumstances duplicated by the much more recent obser- reasonably a time frame change within provided by the vations of and evidence needs, and to meet Natasha’s calculated their therapist, and the based on GAL (2) termination of Janice’s interactions experience ongoing recent of Natasha so is in the best interest with Janice. adoption may be made available reported in- Finding number 10 The evidence permanency placement. progress witnesses, on the lack of including formation presented that was therapy programs ice, current events and testified about who own the termination duplicated by ongoing observations at findings in the Mas- these hearing, appears her view of the failures about However, the Court ultimately led much doubt. programs without sachusetts court’s reference to her abusive bio- the trial to return Natasha to holds in the ICPC mate- the older information mother in Maine. The ICPC logical can requires reversal. Such 10 was is error finding rial number referenced *11 613 saying provides the case if the is The law Court any duplicative in paren- error admission termination of unfitness in protective proceeding finds, a child by rights tal exists when the cannot be harmless error. The law of evidence, convincing par- that a clear and harmless error is not so absolute and un- responsibility for a ent is unable to take yielding. protect a child from with- child reasonably in calculated to a time which is
[¶
the context of a termination
47]
22
meet
child’s needs.
M.R.S.
rights proceeding,
we have
(ii).
4055(l)(B)(2)(b)(i),
“preserved
stated that
error is reversible
any
right
compromised,
substantial
is
admitted evidence
properly
prejudice
objecting party,
dispute,
real
the tri-
supports, without
supporting party
cannot convince the
(1)
court’s conclusions that:
Janice is
al
court that
in
the error was harmless
presently capable
parenting
not
Nata-
context of the
in
other events and evidence
(2)
sha;
passive approach
Janice takes a
B.,
proceeding.”
In re Joshua
2001
opportunities
improve
par-
offered
115, ¶11,
1240, 1244;
ME
776 A.2d
see
skills,
enting
responding,
sometimes
some-
¶
J.,
148, 14,
also In re Rachel
2002 ME
her,
not,
times
to initiatives offered to
(“
418,
804 A.2d
State has the
‘[T]he
demonstrating significant progress
to-
burden of persuading
highly
us that it is
improved management
per-
ward
of her
probable that
prejudice
the error did not
(3)
skills;
parenting
sonal life or her
since
parents
or contribute to
result in
care for
Janice deemed herself unable to
case,”’
W.,
(quoting
In re Michelle
inappropriately shipped
Natasha and
¶
286)).
123, 12,
283,
2001 ME
777 A.2d
care,
to Fort Kent to be
her mother’s
cases,
In criminal
where funda-
her involvement with Natasha has declined
mental
are also at stake and an
despite
Department’s
pro-
initiatives to
proof
enhanced burden of
applies, we have
pay
opportunities
for Janice
vide
said that a trial error is harmless when the
with,
participate
therapy
to visit
State demonstrates that it
highly proba-
(4)
Natasha;
with,
beyond present
ble that the error did not affect the trial
incapacity
to care for
White,
court’s decision. State v.
2002 ME
witnesses,
of several
based on current ob-
1146, 1150;
804 A.2d
see also
Janice, supported
servations of
the view
States,
193,
Williams v. United
503 U.S.
likely to
that Janice’s situation is not
112 S.Ct.
the trial court was
the ICPC
for our
question.
prop-
probable”
fitness
is the standard
“highly
J.,
review,
by the
In re
erly
provided
admitted evidence
error
Rachel
harmless
¶
hearing sup-
at the
here
witnesses who testified
vant. conclusion, to the court’s irrelevant evidence, that the best
supported of Natasha would served
interests parental rights.
termination of circumstances, court’s In the considering the dat- admitting
error in