Case Title: In re Children of Loretta M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020 ME 121

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 121 
Docket: 
Wal-20-36 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 29, 2020 
 
Decided: 
October 15, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.  
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF LORETTA M. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  Loretta M. appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court 
(Belfast, Davis, J.) terminating her parental rights to three of her children 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv) (2020).1  
Contrary to the mother’s contention, on this record the court did not clearly err 
in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing 
evidence, nor did the court abuse its discretion in concluding that termination 
was in the children’s best interests.  See In re Children of Jason C., 2020 ME 86, 
¶¶ 7, 10, --- A.3d ---. 
 
[¶2]  Although we affirm the judgment, we note that in its termination 
order the court, in addition to making express factual findings pursuant to 
M.R. Civ. P. 52(a), discussed the evidence at length rather than making actual 
                                         
1  The judgment also terminated the father’s parental rights; he has not appealed. 
 
 
2 
findings regarding other facts.  The court prefaced many parts of that discussion 
with the phrases “[a]ccording to [the witness] . . .”; “[t]he court heard testimony 
from [the witness concerning] . . .”; “[the witness] testified that . . .”; “[the 
witness] reported . . .”; and the like.  We recently held, and we now reemphasize, 
that such references to the evidence are not “express factual findings” that may 
support a trial court’s judgment because “[a]lthough the court described the 
testimony of the . . . witnesses at length, it did not state what testimony it 
believed or what findings it made on the basis of that testimony.”  Klein v. Klein, 
2019 ME 85, ¶ 7, 208 A.3d 802. 
 
[¶3]  That said, in this case the express findings that the court did make 
were sufficient to support its determination to terminate the mother’s parental 
rights. 
The entry is: 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sean Ociepka, Esq., Ociepka & Burnett, P.A., Belfast, for appellant mother 
 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Belfast District Court docket number PC-2016-3 
For Clerk Reference Only