In re Children of Alice R.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 33Docket: Som-17-396
Submitted
On Briefs: February 26, 2018
Decided: March 15, 2018
Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF ALICE R.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The mother and father of a son appeal from a judgment of the
District Court (Skowhegan, Stanfill, J.) terminating their parental rights to the
child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii)
(2017). The mother also appeals from a judgment of the District Court
(Skowhegan, Stanfill, J.) finding jeopardy to their daughter’s health and welfare
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017). After reviewing the evidence, we affirm.
[¶2] The court held a consolidated hearing on the Department’s petitions
for the termination of the parents’ parental rights to their son and for a
jeopardy order in the child protection case regarding their daughter on June 26
and 27, 2017.1
1 The daughter was born after the Department filed a petition to terminate the mother’s and
father’s parental rights to their son.
2
[¶3] Based on the testimony presented at the hearing and other
competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the parents were unwilling or unable to protect their son from
jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is
reasonably calculated to meet his needs; (2) the parents are unwilling or unable
to take responsibility for their son within a time which is reasonably calculated
to meet his needs; and (3) termination of their parental rights is in the best
interest of their son. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). The court
also found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their daughter was in
circumstances of jeopardy to her health and welfare. See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2).
The court based both its termination decision and its jeopardy determination
on the following findings of fact:
In order to reunify, both parents were required to participate
in individual counseling, participate in Maine Families, take
parenting classes, and secure a safe, stable home environment free
from emotional dysregulation. [The father’s] counseling was to
include a component for risk reduction of sexual re-offense. Later
in the case, domestic violence education was added for [the
mother]. Although the parents have participated in many of the
service requirements, the court finds that their participation was
incomplete, that they have failed to acquire the necessary basic
skills to be safe parents, and that [the father] continues to pose a
significant risk of violence to his family.
[D]espite parenting classes and “hand over hand”
supervision, both parents still need a great deal of prompting after
3
over a year in order to parent. [The mother] in particular still
needs assistance or prompting in how to hold a baby, to burp the
baby, to support the baby’s head, to change diapers, and to prepare
a bottle. . . . While [the father’s] skills are better, he also continues
to need prompting in caring for the children after all this time. The
supervisors have had to step in with safety concerns. In short, the
court is persuaded that although these parents love their children
very much, neither parent has the basic parenting skills needed to
safely raise their children. Moreover, those circumstances are
unlikely to change given the extensive interventions that have
occurred over the last 16 months or so without much success.
The court is also concerned about past abuse as well as [the
father’s] potential for violence to his family in the future. [The
father] has two domestic violence convictions involving a past
partner. He was convicted of an assault as a juvenile that involved
sexual abuse of a young child. He was evaluated in connection with
this case, and the court is persuaded he is at very high risk for
recidivism and violence.
The court believes there has been threatening and coercive
behavior in [the mother and father’s] relationship, if not actual
violence. Although [the mother] now denies any abuse in the
relationship, she certainly was saying differently in January when
the Guardian ad litem, her lawyer, the case worker and her case
manager were all involved in trying to help her leave [the father].
[The father] admits he threatened to burn her belongings; [the
mother] denies he would ever do such a thing.
Most importantly, neither parent admits any abusive
behaviors in this relationship, and neither demonstrates any
insight that would prevent such behaviors in the future. The court
is particularly struck by [the father’s] assertions to this court and
to others that he would never be violent to a child because they are
too young to speak up and stress him out. Rather, he asserts he is
only violent with adults because they know what buttons to push,
an assertion that provides little reassurance as to the future for this
family.
4
[¶4] Both parents timely appealed the order terminating their parental
rights to their son; only the mother timely appealed the court’s judgment
finding jeopardy to their daughter’s health and welfare. See 22 M.R.S. § 4006
(2017); M.R. App. P. 2B. On November 13 and 14, 2017, pursuant to the process
outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139, counsel for the
mother and counsel for the father filed appellate briefs outlining the factual and
procedural history of the case and stating that they believed that there are no
arguable issues of merit for an appeal. In an order dated November 17, 2017,
we granted both parents an enlargement of time to file supplemental briefs.
Neither parent filed a supplemental brief, and we granted the Department’s
motion requesting that we consider the appeal without briefing from the
Department.
[¶5] The record evidence supports the court’s findings of parental
unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’
parental rights was in their son’s best interest. See In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66,
¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345. Further, the court’s jeopardy findings are supported by
competent evidence in the record that can rationally be understood to establish
as more likely than not that their daughter was in circumstances of jeopardy to
her health and welfare. See In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶¶ 9, 13,
5
140 A.3d 1226 (holding that a court may make a jeopardy determination with
respect to one child by relying on evidence of a parent’s behavior toward
another child).
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
Elissa J. Roberts, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant Mother
Caitlin Ross Wahrer, Esq., Chester & Vestal, P.A., Portland, for appellant Father
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief
Skowhegan District Court docket number PC-2016-9
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY