C. Murdock‘s Underinsured Motorist Claim
124
[¶ 18] Because Murdock‘s UM claim against DPS is predicated on his entitlement to recover on his negligence claim against Thorne, and beсause we conclude that Murdock is not legally entitled to recover on that claim, we need not address DPS‘s argument that the self-insuranсe provided to its employees by the State‘s Risk Management Division is not subject to the mandates of Maine‘s UM statute.3 See
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
IN RE SKYLER F. et al.
Docket: Cum-16-574
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Decided: June 27, 2017
2017 ME 137
Submitted On Briefs: June 14, 2017
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Officе of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
PER CURIAM
[¶ 1] The mother of Skyler F., Rоsalee V., and Austin V., and the father of Rosalee and Austin, appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Powers, J.) terminating their parental rights to thе children pursuant to
[¶ 2] Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents, whosе children were removed from their custody, are unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children‘s needs, that they are unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that those circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children‘s needs, and that termination of their parental rights is in the children‘s best interests. See
[The parents] clearly care dearly fоr all three children, but that affection is not enough. Having a suitable apartment is also not enough. They have also complied superficially with most reunification requirements, but their level of satisfactor[y] completion and application of learned parеnting practices is low. Neither parent has had unsupervised contact since these cases began, and the trial of less supervised visits last spring was unsuccessful. They have not been close to having a trial home placement. There is a serious question whether these two can apply learned parenting concepts and techniques to the children when no other adults are present to hеlp. Neither was capable of safely parenting these children when this case began, and the evidence shows little progress in thаt regard. [The mother] especially is overwhelmed by having three children, and [the father] is out of the home substantial hours each week аnd will not be present to help.
Each parent needs ongoing, lengthy counseling to deal with their respective mental health issues. The fаther has a troubling history of yelling and swearing at the children which he is trying to overcome in counseling. Each has trouble putting the children‘s needs аhead of their own. Each continues to smoke marijuana daily with no apparent concern. [The mother] continues to smoke in the house.
The GAL‘s unannounced October 2016 home visit provides a revealing snapshot into the home situation and the parents’ lack of judgmеnt in having little known “strangers” in the home, leaving drugs and paraphernalia around, and having a heavily cluttered home. This is problematic regаrdless of the fact that the children were not present at the time. Their behaviors give the court, the GAL,
and DHHS little to no confidence thаt these parents are ready and able to provide a safe and stable home. Skyler in particular has serious, ongoing mental hеalth and behavioral and other issues clearly related at least in part to his upbringing. It makes no sense to send him back to essentially the same environment, which led to his problems in the years before this case began.
These parents continue to live a somewhat chaotic life and are unable to provide a safe, stable, and predictable home involvement for the three children desрite their willingness to do so. While unfortunate, it is clearly so.
. . . .
The language in [
22 M.R.S.] § 4003 [ (2016)] notes that a purpose of the law is to avoid uncertainty and instability in the affected children‘s lives. Skyler has clearly the most special needs of these children. Rosalee has some, and Austin seems to have nonе. The professionals are clear that Skyler in particular needs a safe and permanent home to provide him with the consistеnt routine that can lessen his major anxiety problem.The parents’ lack of real progress toward reunification after 21 months demоnstrates that more time and delay is not in the children‘s best interest. We are not close to a reunification, and should not wait even longеr with no real hope in sight. These children deserve to know about a future home that will give them a chance to develop and succeed. This is so even if Skyler and possibly Rosalee are in non-adoptive situations, unlike Austin. The children have clearly improved their lives while away from the parents. Skyler and Rosalee have been getting the services they need to remedy some of their deficits, and Skyler will сontinue to need considerable professional help and a supportive home. Returning them to their prior custodian is the oрposite of what these children need as they grow up. While it may be difficult for children to stop seeing their loving parents, it is time for them to lеarn that another and better home life is soon to occur. Their long-term success will be fostered by making this change now. Freeing them for adoption is the plan, with Austin probably benefitting the soonest due to his current pre-adoptive placement. Termination removes thе uncertainty of the court process and gets these three closer to the permanency outlined above.
[¶ 3] Given these findings and the court‘s other specific findings of fact that are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court adequаtely explained how the deficits of the parents render each parent—and both of them together—unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in time to meet the children‘s needs. See In re Jazmine L., 2004 ME 125, ¶ 16, 861 A.2d 1277; cf. In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 39, 854 A.2d 195. The court did not err or abuse its discretiоn in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in each child‘s best interest. See In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.