In re Kaliyah B.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 134 Docket: Pen-17-53
Submitted
On Briefs: June 14, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE KALIYAH B.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The mother of Kaliyah B. appeals from an order of the District
Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) finding jeopardy as to both her and the father
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035(4-A) (2016), and ordering that the child be
placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1)(F) (2016).1 Because (1) a dispositional order
of custody is not appealable,2 (2) the mother does not challenge the finding of
jeopardy as to her, and (3) the evidence supports the court’s finding of
jeopardy as to the father, we affirm the judgment.
1 The father has not appealed.
2 To the extent the mother challenges the dispositional order placing the child in Department
custody rather than in the father’s custody, such a challenge is interlocutory and not properly
before us. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4006, 4036 (2016). As we have recently reiterated, “the disposition
ordered by a court after it makes [a jeopardy] finding is not appealable.” In re Z.S., 2015 ME 110,
¶ 8, 121 A.3d 1286 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we do not
address that aspect of the mother’s appeal. For the purposes of this appeal, we assume without
deciding that one parent has standing to challenge a jeopardy determination as to another parent.
2
[¶2] The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as to
both the mother and the father, the child was in circumstances of jeopardy to
her health and welfare. See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2); In re Dorothy V., 2001 ME 97,
¶¶ 11-12, 774 A.2d 1118. The court based this determination on the
following factual findings, which are supported by competent evidence in the
record.
[¶3] The mother suffers from substance abuse and mental health
issues, has not participated in visitation with the child or attended services,
used heroin regularly while pregnant with the child, and remained addicted to
heroin as of the jeopardy hearing. The father has a history of domestic
violence and “has been neglectful and has failed to protect [the child].”
[¶4] In October 2016, when the father had custody of the child, the
mother called the father upset about her heroin addiction, her lack of support
from family members, and her desire to see the child. At this time, the child
was a young, vulnerable infant, dependent on her caregiver. The father took
the child to live with the mother for several days. Although the father knew,
having been informed by the Department, that the child was not to be left
alone with the mother unsupervised, on October 8, 2016, he left the child
alone with the mother while he traveled to New York City. Upon learning of
3
the arrangement, the Department undertook a search for the child, which
lasted several hours before the child was located. During the search effort, the
father spoke with the Department over the phone and lied repeatedly about
his and the child’s whereabouts.
[¶5] The court concluded that by leaving the child alone with the
heroin-addicted mother and lying to those charged with protecting the child,
the father exhibited a “serious failure in judgment” that created a
circumstance of jeopardy. Because the court’s finding that the child was more
likely than not in circumstances of jeopardy in her father’s care is supported
by competent record evidence, we affirm the judgment. See In re E.A.,
2015 ME 37, ¶ 7, 114 A.3d 207.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Randy G. Day, Esq., Garland, for appellant Mother
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
Bangor District Court docket number PC-2016-75
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY