In re Children of Travis G.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2019 ME 20Docket: Han-18-350
Submitted
On Briefs: January 17, 2019
Decided: February 5, 2019
Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF TRAVIS G.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Travis G. and Kathleen T. appeal from an order entered by the
District Court (Ellsworth, Roberts, J.) finding that their minor children are in
jeopardy pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017). The mother and father
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the children are in jeopardy. We affirm
the judgment.1
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The Department of Health and Human Services filed a child
protection petition against the mother and father as to their three minor
1
Additionally, the mother and father contend that the court erred by finding that the
Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the
children, and erred by finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify and
rehabilitate the family. See 22 M.R.S. 4036-B(3), 4041 (2017). Contrary to the mother and father’s
assertions, there is competent record evidence to support the court’s findings, and we will not
address these contentions further. See In re Doris G., 2006 ME 142, ¶¶ 8-9, 14-17, 912 A.2d 572.
2
children in February 2018, alleging that the mother and father chronically
neglected the children’s medical and developmental needs, failed to provide
safe and sanitary housing, and failed to adequately supervise the children.
After a three-day testimonial hearing, by order dated July 31, 2018, the court
found by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were in
circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare. See 22 M.R.S. § 4035.
[¶3] The court based its findings of jeopardy on the following factual
findings, which are supported by competent record evidence.2 See id.
§ 4035(2). With regard to the mother, the court found:
Mother: [Infant child] has gross motor delays. She was in the
1st percentile for weight when she entered State custody. [Middle
child’s] vaccinations were delayed. [Middle child and oldest child]
had elevated Ages and Stages evaluation scores indicating
significant developmental delays. [Mother] lacks the ability to
care for 3 children on her own at this time. She needs to learn [to]
develop better parenting skills and demonstrate an attachment to
her children. Their current residence, with Father’s parents[,] is
not suitable for children of their ages due to unsanitary
conditions. [Mother’s] level of commitment to her relationship
with [father] is questionable and may impact her attachment to
their children.
With regard to the father, the court found:
Father . . . lacks the ability to provide significant assistance to
[paternal grandmother]. He does not have the ability to care for
2 Neither parent moved for additional findings of fact pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) after the
court entered its judgment.
3
the children on his own as he is working and attempting to
establish a safe home for the family. [Father’s] level of
commitment to [mother] is questionable as well. He cannot
provide the children the assistance that they need at this time to
overcome their developmental delays.
[¶4] The mother and father timely appeal the court’s findings of
jeopardy. See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2017); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
[¶5] The mother and father raise challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the court’s findings of jeopardy. We review the court’s
findings for clear error, and will affirm the court’s jeopardy determination “if
any evidence in the record can rationally be understood to establish as more
likely than not that the [children were] in circumstances of jeopardy to [their]
health and welfare.” See In re Destiny T., 2009 ME 26, ¶ 14, 965 A.2d 872.
[¶6] Contrary to the mother and father’s contentions, there is
competent record evidence that can rationally be understood to establish as
more likely than not that the children are in circumstances of jeopardy. See
In re E.L., 2014 ME 87, ¶¶ 12-14, 96 A.3d 691. The evidence presented
establishes that the mother and father have neglected the health and welfare
of the three children and placed them in a threat of serious harm. See
22 M.R.S. § 4002(6)(A) (2017). Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that
4
the mother and father have neglected the children’s medical and
developmental needs and have failed to provide appropriate housing for the
three children. See In re Dorothy V., 2001 ME 97, ¶ 8 n.2, 774 A.2d 1118.
Because the court’s findings are supported by competent record evidence, we
do not disturb the court’s determination that the children are in
circumstances of jeopardy. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6)(A), 4035; In re Child of
Tiffany F., 2018 ME 137, ¶ 5, 195 A.3d 84.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Mary Kellett Gray, Esq., Brooklin, for appellant mother
William B. Blaisdell, IV, Esq., Blaisdell & Blaisdell, Ellsworth, for appellant
father
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and
Human Services
Ellsworth District Court docket number PC-2018-05
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY