In re Gracesun C. , 2017 Me. LEXIS 33 ( 2017 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 34 Docket: Pis-16-372
Submitted
On Briefs: February 23, 2017
Decided: March 2, 2017
Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE GRACESUN C. et al.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The father and mother of Gracesun C., Roderick C., and Golda C.
appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Dover-Foxcroft, Stitham, J.)
terminating their parental rights to their three children. We affirm the
judgment.
[¶2] These children came into the custody of the Department of Health
and Human Services on March 16, 2015, shortly after the police were called to
intervene in an alcohol-fueled fight between the children’s father and their
mother, who was then eight months pregnant.1 Over the course of the next
year,2 the parents were provided myriad services and opportunities to reunify
their family. Those efforts failed, however, due to a combination of the
parents’ mental health issues and their choices. The mother has been
1 Golda, who was born on March 4, 2015, tested positive for THC.
2 In June of 2015, each parent agreed that the children would be in jeopardy if returned to his or
her care.
2
diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, attention deficit disorder,
bipolar disorder, and polysubstance abuse. The father, by all accounts, would
be able to safely and appropriately parent the children if he could, or was
willing to, protect them from the mother and from the “toxic” events that
occur when the parents are together. As the trial court found, however, the
father “is just too enmeshed” with the mother to be able to separate from her.
The court found,
[S]hould these children reside with these parents . . . there will be
instances of domestic violence and volatility and erratic behavior
caused by [the mother’s] mental health and substance abuse
problems and that [the father] will once again partake of
substances with [the mother] when he knows that such use
combined with her mental health issues will create yet again
another volatile situation which will negatively impact the children.
(Emphasis in original.)
[¶3] Contrary to the parents’ contentions, there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence,
that both parents are “unwilling or unable to protect the child[ren] from
jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which
is reasonably calculated to meet the child[ren]’s needs” and that they “ha[ve]
been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child[ren] within a time
which is reasonably calculated to meet the child[ren]’s needs.”
3
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii) (2016); see In re M.S., 2014 ME 54, ¶ 13,
90 A.3d 443.
[¶4] There is also sufficient evidence in the record to support the
court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the
best interest of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2016); In re
M.S., 2014 ME 54, ¶ 15, 90 A.3d 443. The evidence at trial showed that the
oldest child, now six years old, presents the “classic” symptoms of a child
exposed to domestic violence—attachment difficulties, anxiety, difficulty with
social skills and with educational programs, and resistance to treatment—and
that the middle child, now three-and-a-half years old, is likely to be diagnosed
with post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive attachment disorder. As a
result of his exposure to violence and chaos, the eldest child requires
placement in “therapeutic” level foster care. Although the youngest child, who
was removed from the parents when she was less than two weeks old, does
not demonstrate these symptoms, she is not bonded with the parents and
would be placed at risk if returned to the parents’ care. The court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that termination is in the best interest of
the children. See In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶ 16, 889 A.2d 297.
4
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Wendy D. Hatch, Esq., Waterville, for appellant mother
Randy G. Day, Esq., Garland, for appellant father
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Courtney Goodwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and
Human Services
Dover-Foxcroft District Court docket number PC-2015-9
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY