In re Ryder C. , 2017 Me. LEXIS 174 ( 2017 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 164 Docket: Ken-17-72
Submitted
On Briefs: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 20, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE RYDER C.
HJELM, J.
[¶1] The mother and father of Ryder C. appeal from a judgment of the
District Court (Augusta, Nale, J.) terminating their parental rights pursuant to
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(a), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i), and (1-A)(E)
(2016). Both parents challenge the court’s findings that they are unfit and its
conclusion that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best
interest. Because the evidence supports the court’s findings and the court did
not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in making its best interest
determination, we affirm the judgment. See In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18,
¶¶ 10-11, 154 A.3d 1199.
[¶2] Based on evidence presented during a three-day hearing held in
December 2016 and January 2017, the court found by clear and convincing
evidence, both directly and based on a statutory presumption of unfitness, see
2
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E),1 that the parents are unable to protect the child
from jeopardy and that those circumstances are unlikely to change within a
time calculated to meet the child’s needs, see id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i). See
In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d 894. The court also determined
that termination of the parental rights of the mother and father is in the best
interest of the child, who was three years old at the time of the hearing. See
id.; 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
[¶3] In reaching those determinations, the court made the following
factual findings, which are supported by the record. See In re Mya E., 2017 ME
93, ¶ 2, --- A.3d ---.
[¶4] The child was born at thirty-two weeks with serious medical and
developmental disabilities that still profoundly affect him. The child has been
under the care of a cardiologist, an orthopedic surgeon, a geneticist, an eye
doctor, a neurologist, and an ear, nose, and throat physician, in addition to his
pediatrician. Due to his medical needs, the child’s survival depends on
“consistent and unwavering attention” and care from his caregivers.
1 Title 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E) (2016) provides:
The court may presume that the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child
from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which
is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs if . . . [t]he child has been placed in
the legal custody or care of the department for at least 9 months, and the parents
have been offered or received services to correct the situation but have refused or
have made no significant effort to correct the situation.
3
[¶5] Additionally, while he was in his parents’ care, the child suffered
from “significant environmental failure to thrive.” He was not adequately fed
and, during his second year of life, essentially gained no weight. The child’s
medical care was compromised because his parents caused him to miss
dozens of scheduled medical appointments. The court accepted the
assessment of a physician who testified that this was “one of the most severe
cases of parental neglect” he had seen in thirty years of practice. During that
time, the mother also abused her prescription medications.
[¶6] After the child had been placed in foster care, which occurred in
August 2015, he was returned to his mother’s custody for a trial placement.
As the court found, that effort was “a mistake.” During the six weeks when the
child was with her in the spring of 2016, the mother did not take him to
“crucial scheduled appointments”; she did not adequately feed him, causing
him to lose weight; and she deliberately overstated to the child’s medical
provider how much food she was giving him.
[¶7] The father suffers from mental health issues, but he has refused to
participate in individual counseling as required by his reunification plan and
has failed to submit to drug screens as requested. He does not understand
why the child was placed in the care of the Department of Health and Human
4
Services. The court agreed with the father’s own assessment that he is
presently unable to care for the child.
[¶8] Since being placed in foster care, the child is in “reasonably good
health,” he has consistently gained weight, and his physiological development
has been “spectacular.” His foster parent meets his significant needs, such as
providing physical and occupational therapy and taking the child to his
medical appointments. Both parents, on the other hand, have missed many of
the child’s appointments, and the father has not appeared for most scheduled
visits. The court found that the mother’s excuses for the missed appointments
were not credible. Although the parents love the child, both have their own
“incredible needs,” and neither is able to manage the demands of the child’s
care “or even recognize what those needs are.”
[¶9] The court’s factual findings explain the serious needs of the child,
the parents’ failure to make a significant effort to improve their caregiving
abilities while the child has been in the Department’s custody, and their
inability to assume responsibility of caring for the child. The findings of
parental unfitness were supported by the evidence, and the court did not
abuse its discretion or err in determining that termination of the parental
5
rights of the mother and father will serve the child’s best interest. See In re
Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162, ¶¶ 17-18, 150 A.3d 805.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Elyse M. Apantaku, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant mother
Thomas W. Bell, Esq., The Law Office of Thomas W. Bell, Topsham, for
appellant father
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
Augusta District Court docket number PC-2015-3
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY