Case Title: In re Haylie W.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 157

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 157 
Docket: 
Ken-17-90 
Submitted 
On Briefs: June 29, 2017 
Decided: 
July 13, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE HAYLIE W. et al. 
 
 
SAUFLEY, C.J. 
 
[¶1]  The mother of Haylie W. and Lexie W. appeals from a judgment of 
the District Court (Augusta, Nale, J.) terminating her parental rights to the 
children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), 
and (iv) (2016).  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 
court’s findings that the children cannot wait for permanency and that she 
failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.  The mother also 
argues that the court should have ordered a permanency guardianship instead 
of terminating her fundamental parental rights.  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 mother is unable to protect the 
children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time 
 
2 
reasonably calculated to meet their needs, that the mother failed to make a 
good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify, and that termination of her 
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 findings 
of fact that include the following: 
 
The children of mother . . . came into State custody because 
of mother’s serious drug use that jeopardized the health and 
safety of her two minor children.  The mother admits that her 
drug use made her unable to safely take care of her two children.  
 
 
The mother’s abuse of crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, 
illicit use of Oxycodone, Vicodin, and Percocet, as well as 
non-prescribed use of Suboxone and Subutex have caused the 
minor children to be born drug affected and to be exposed to 
substance abuse throughout their lives.   
 
 
The mother was offered services on multiple occasions to 
help her with the issues that prevented the safe return of her 
children.   
 
 
The Court finds that the mother failed to participate in 
reunification services offered to her, failed to take advantage of a 
referral to Family Treatment Drug Court, failed to otherwise 
engage in services to address her significant substance abuse 
problem, failed to maintain contact with the Department for the 
purpose of scheduling month-to-month meetings and scheduling 
a family team meeting, failed to comply with the Department’s 
requirements for random drug screening, and failed to regularly 
attend scheduled weekly visits with Haylie and Lexie, mother’s 
minor children.   
 
 
The Court finds that these facts were little changed at each 
Judicial Review Hearing.  The Court finds that the testimony of 
 
3 
each of the three caseworkers assigned to help the mother in 
efforts to rehabilitate and reunite to be very credible.  Mother did 
not engage in the services offered and mother continued to use 
illegal drugs.   
 
 
The court finds that the mother understood why her 
children were removed from her custody and what was required 
of her to alleviate jeopardy.  The Court finds that the mother tried 
on many occasions to get and stay clean of drugs.  She relapsed 
each time.   
 
 
The court finds testimony of . . . mother’s substance abuse 
counselor to be credible.  [The counselor] believes that mother 
has continued to relapse.  The Court finds that [the counselor] is 
unable to provide a time frame within which mother might be 
addiction free.  The court finds that [the counselor] believes it is 
ultimately up to [the mother] as to how successful she will be and 
how long it may take.    
 
 
The Court finds that [the counselor] believes that six 
months of being off drugs is a “Good Start” to recovery.  The start 
time would be the middle of January (last reported use of 
drugs). . . .  The court finds that because of mother’s history of 
relapsing it is very likely that mother’s recovery will be one of 
many months.   
 
 
The Court finds that [the mother] struggled throughout this 
case with substance abuse.  The rehabilitation and reunification 
plan made it very clear that substance abuse was a very serious 
concern and it needed to be addressed.  The court finds that all 
three caseworkers made it very clear to the mother that her 
substance abuse is a very serious issue and needed her 
attention. . . .   
 
. . . . 
 
 
The mother loves her children.  The mother is asking for 
more time and another chance. . . .  As this Court has stated on 
 
4 
many occasions, substance abuse recovery is a marathon, not a 
sprint.  Haylie and Lexie simply cannot wait any longer; they are 
entitled to permanency now. 
 
. . . . 
 
 
The court also finds that termination is in the best interest 
of these two children.  
 
 
[¶3]  Each of the three independent grounds of parental unfitness that 
the court found is supported by these findings regarding the effects of the 
mother’s insufficient adherence to substance abuse treatment on her capacity 
to keep the children safe and take responsibility for them in time to meet their 
needs.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv); In re Michaela C., 2002 
ME 159, ¶ 17, 809 A.2d 1245.  The court did not rush to judgment because of 
the mother’s addictions.  To the contrary, the court specifically found that, 
after the girls were removed from the mother’s care, the mother was offered 
multiple opportunities to regain sobriety but failed to make the necessary 
effort to follow through with treatment. 
 
[¶4]  The court’s findings also support its determination that the 
termination of the mother’s parental rights—not the creation of a permanency 
guardianship, which would allow the mother to petition the court for rights of 
contact or for termination of the guardianship, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-C(3), (6) 
(2016)—is in the best interest of each of her young children, who have now 
 
5 
been living with their grandmother for almost two years of their young lives 
and need a safe, permanent home.  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4003(4), 4050(2)-(3), 
4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2016); In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶¶ 12-13, 154 A.3d 
1199; In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 23-30, 889 A.2d 297.  The girls are 
fortunate to have the love and support of their grandmother as the 
Department moves on with planning a permanent home for the girls.  The 
court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating the mother’s parental 
rights. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nathaniel Seth Levy, Esq., Brunswick, 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 
 
 
Augusta District Court docket number PC-2015-59 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY