In re Children of Melissa S. ( 2019 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2019 ME 63Docket: Cum-18-478
Submitted
On Briefs: April 24, 2019
Decided: May 2, 2019
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF MELISSA S.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Melissa S. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland,
Eggert, J.) terminating her parental rights to her three children.1 The mother
advances no argument on appeal, and after reviewing the evidence in this case,
we affirm the court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] In November 2018, the court held a hearing on the Department of
Health and Human Services’ petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights
to her three children. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4052, 4054 (2018). Following the
hearing, the court issued a judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights
after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unable to
protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for the children within
1 Although the father’s parental rights were also terminated, he has not appealed from the court’s
judgment, and therefore we focus only on the procedural history and findings regarding the mother.
2
a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, that the mother failed to make
a good faith effort at reunification, and that termination of the mother’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv) (2018).
[¶3] The court based its determination on the following findings of fact,
all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record.
Mother has signed releases for the Department and
completed a parenting education program, but has not successfully
completed any other elements of her plan. She has done some of
the random drug screens required, but failed to attend one
mandated after a September 2018 Family Team Meeting, and
presented a false sample at a July 26, 2018 screen. She also failed
the screens done on May 26, 2018. She has not consistently visited
with the children and has not seen them since June 9, 2018. She
has sporadically attended some [counseling] with various
counselors but has not been in a consistent program, and she has
had neither a substance abuse nor a psychological evaluation. She
has also not participated in a program of individual therapy
specifically to gain insight into the effect of domestic violence on
children. The plan has been in effect for fifteen months at this point
and she [has] not at this time . . . lined up any of the [counseling]
services she still needs to complete. The children have now been
out of her care for twenty months and the best she has been able to
do during that time is to have supervised visits with them, and at
that, inconsistently, with a total absence of contact for the past five
months.
At the present time mother does not have any housing
suitable for the children. She reports that she is living at times with
her sister . . . and at times with a friend . . . . Neither situation would
be adequate for the children. She has not reported any
employment, nor did she explain in any detail what she does with
3
her time. When asked about what the children need from her if she
were to resume care of them, she mentioned only participating in
holidays, baking and sharing cookies and cakes, getting to doctors
and dentists, and going to school. She did not articulate any other
needs of daily life for the care of a 10 year old, a 5 year old, and an
18 month old. This comes after having completed a parenting
course . . . . She is clearly not ready to resume care of these three
children.
. . . .
When [the middle child] came into [Department] custody he
had very limited vocabulary for a three year old, and speech
difficulties. He had not had appropriate medical care and checkups
while with his parents. Since being placed with other family
members he has had the benefit of occupational therapy, physical
therapy, and speech therapy, and has had appropriate medical and
dental care which is now up to date. He has made great strides in
improving his speech and motor coordination. . . .
[The youngest child] was born drug affected and has had
some developmental delays. At present he is not yet verbal, but has
begun to take a few steps, and coming closer to meeting other
developmental milestones.
[¶4] The mother timely appealed the court’s judgment. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4006 (2018); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1). In January 2019, counsel for the mother
filed an appellate brief following the process we have laid out for when counsel
does not believe that there are any arguable issues of merit on appeal in an
appeal from an order terminating parental rights. See In re Children of Bradford
W., 2019 ME 15, ¶ 6, 200 A.3d 1256 (citing In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶ 7, 104
A.3d 139).
4
[¶5] Counsel’s brief outlined the factual and procedural history of the
case and included a statement that, “after having thoroughly reviewed the case
file, the transcript . . . and the [a]ppendix,” counsel “believes, in good faith, that
there are no arguable issues of merit for this appeal.” Counsel’s brief was
accompanied by a request that the mother be permitted an enlargement of time
to allow her to personally file a supplemental brief, which we granted. Although
informed of her right to do so, the mother did not file a supplemental brief, and
we granted the Department’s request to consider this appeal without briefing
from the Department.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶6] The record supports the court’s findings, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the mother is unable to protect the children from jeopardy or
take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to meet their
needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii); In re Child of Everett S., 2018
ME 93, ¶ 3, 189 A.3d 240; In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195.
The record also supports the court’s finding that the mother has failed to make
a good faith effort toward reunifying with her children. See 22 M.R.S.
§§ 4041(1-A)(B), 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv) (2018). Finally, there is no error or
abuse of discretion in the court’s conclusion that termination of the mother’s
5
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Erika S. Bristol, Esq., Auburn, for appellant Mother
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief
Portland District Court docket numbers PC-2017-32 & PC-2017-41
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY