In re Child of Adam E. , 2018 ME 157 ( 2018 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 157 Docket: Cum-18-284
Submitted
On Briefs: November 28, 2018
Decided: December 6, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILD OF ADAM E.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Adam E. appeals from a judgment of the District Court
(Portland, Powers, J.) terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2017).1 The father
contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings by
clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is unable to protect the child from
jeopardy or to take responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated
to meet the child’s needs, and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest.
See id. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] The court based its determinations on the following findings of fact,
all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record:
[The father] loves his son but has not cared for him for years. The
father has had chronic homelessness and mental health issues. He
has not had a stable house for his son and lived outside as recently
1 The mother consented to a termination of her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal.
2
as the winter of 2017-18. [The father] has had a chaotic lifestyle
himself and only recently found an apartment. He continues to live
with a woman with a concerning child protection history involving
termination of her parental rights.
The child’s father only had supervised visits which were suspended
twice for inconsistent attendance. Recently he has seen [the child]
three hours on Friday afternoons, and again there have been
inconsistent visits. He is a hard worker and seems to have
prioritized work over child issues. He has not learned about his
son’s services or school issues. He did not ask DHHS to check out
his new apartment for possible trial placement. [The father] has
not had unsupervised contact. His statement that he can meet this
child’s many needs now is unrealistic.
This child has considerable needs to address his anxiety and
behavioral issues and will require services for a long time. [The
father] has not participated in services and has not shown an
understanding of these issues. He wants to be a parent but has not
shown he has the ability to do so throughout this case, despite his
stated desire to do so now.
. . . .
This child has many needs despite receiving extensive services to
address his mental health and behavioral issues. He has been
supported in that endeavor by the . . . foster family, which is able to
understand and meet his needs. It has proven to be an excellent
home. He has improved over about two years as part of this family
while still needing ongoing support for years. His father has not
shown an ability to understood these issues or meet such needs.
Termination will provide the permanence, stability, and
consistency that this boy needs. Uncertainty over the occurrence
of parental visits will end. . . . He will not face removal from his
family, as has occurred twice before with his biological parents.
There will be no more court reviews after adoption and his services
3
will still continue . . . . All of this should help [the child] continue to
improve his mental health, social, and behavioral issues.
This is clearly best for [the] young [child], even though it may take
away his father’s contact. That itself has been inconsistent and a
source of stress.
[¶3] Reviewing the factual findings supporting the court’s unfitness and
best interest determinations for clear error, and further reviewing the court’s
ultimate conclusion that termination is in the child’s best interest for an abuse
of discretion, we determine that the court’s findings and conclusions are
supported by this record. See In re Child of Portia L., 2018 ME 51, ¶ 2,
183 A.3d 747; see also Sullivan v. George, 2018 ME 115, ¶ 13, 191 A.3d 1168 (“A fact-finding is clearly erroneous only if there is no competent evidence in
the record to support it.” (quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Jason A. MacLean, Esq., Bridgton, 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
Portland District Court docket number PC-2016-54
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY