In re Skyler F. , 2017 Me. LEXIS 139 ( 2017 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 137 Docket: Cum-16-574
Submitted
On Briefs: June 14, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE SKYLER F. et al.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The mother of Skyler F., Rosalee 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 the children pursuant to
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii) (2016). They challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s
discretionary determinations of the children’s best interests. Because the
evidence supports the court’s findings and discretionary determinations, we
affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found, by
clear and convincing evidence, that the parents, whose 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
2
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 id.; In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d 894. The court
based these determinations on the following findings of fact:
[The parents] clearly care dearly for 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 satisfact[ory]
completion and application of learned parenting 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 help. Neither was capable of
safely parenting these children when this case began, and the
evidence shows little progress in that regard. [The mother]
especially is overwhelmed by having three children, and [the
father] is out of the home substantial hours each week and will
not be present to help.
Each parent needs ongoing, lengthy counseling to deal with
their respective mental health issues. The father 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 ahead 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 judgment in having little known “strangers” in the home,
leaving drugs and paraphernalia around, and having a heavily
cluttered home. This is problematic regardless of the fact that the
3
children were not present at the time. Their behaviors give the
court, the GAL, and DHHS little to no confidence that these parents
are ready and able to provide a safe and stable home.
Skyler in particular has serious, ongoing mental health 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 despite 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
none. The professionals are clear that Skyler in particular needs a
safe and permanent home to provide him with the consistent
routine that can lessen his major anxiety problem.
The parents’ lack of real progress toward reunification after
21 months demonstrates 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 longer 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
continue to need considerable professional help and a supportive
home. Returning them to their prior custodian is the opposite of
what these children need as they grow up. While it may be
4
difficult for children to stop seeing their loving parents, it is time
for them to learn 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 the 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 adequately
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 discretion 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.
Jason A. MacLean, Esq., South Portland, for appellant Father of
Rosalee and Austin V.
5
Heather Gonzales, Esq., Strike, Gonzales & Butler Bailey, Portland,
for appellant Mother
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee
Department of Health and Human Services
Portland District Court docket numbers PC-2015-45, 68
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY