Case Title: In re Ashlyn L.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 82

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 82 
Docket: 
Cum-16-464 
Submitted 
On Briefs: April 27, 2017 
Decided: 
May 4, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE ASHLYN L. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  The mother of Ashlyn L. appeals from a judgment of the District 
Court (Portland, Powers, J.) terminating her parental rights to Ashlyn pursuant 
to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2016).1  She challenges the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s 
discretionary determination of Ashlyn’s best interest.  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 Ashlyn from 
jeopardy or take responsibility for her within a time reasonably calculated to 
meet her needs, the mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and 
reunify with the child, and termination of the mother’s parental rights is in 
                                         
1  The father’s parental rights to Ashlyn were terminated by the same judgment.  He did not appeal. 
 
2 
Ashlyn’s best interest.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (b)(iv).  The 
court based its determination on the following factual findings. 
 
[¶3]  The child, who was thirteen months old at the time of the 
termination hearing, has lived in foster care with her maternal grandparents2 
and her older sister since she was two days old.  At the time of Ashlyn’s birth, 
the mother’s older daughter was already in the custody of the Department of 
Health and Human Services3 because of the mother’s complete inability to care 
for her and refusal to comply with a safety plan.  The Department alleged that 
the mother similarly had no safe plan to care for Ashlyn and obtained a 
preliminary order of protection on her behalf immediately after she was born.   
 
[¶4]  The mother has significant untreated mental health issues, a history 
of domestic violence against the father, and a lack of knowledge regarding child 
development and basic child care.  She refuses to get help and will not engage 
with proper supports.  Her comments regarding her ability to care for her 
children are, at times, “delusional.”  
[¶5]  Although the mother was provided with services including therapy, 
parental coaching, supervised visitation, and a case worker, she has rejected or 
                                         
2  The foster father is the mother’s father and the foster mother is the mother’s stepmother.   
3  The mother’s rights to her older daughter have since been terminated. 
 
3 
ignored the parenting feedback and advice that are designed to enable her to 
safely care for Ashlyn.  The parental coaching and therapy sessions were 
discontinued because of the mother’s failure to cooperate and engage.  Despite 
the services made available to her, the mother made little or no progress 
toward alleviating jeopardy.  At the time of the termination hearing, she was 
eight months pregnant with her third child and had no safe or realistic plan to 
care for Ashlyn.   
 
[¶6]  Ashlyn is healthy and happy in kinship foster care and has bonded 
with her foster parents.  The foster parents are in the process of adopting her 
older sister, and the foster mother testified that they also hope to adopt Ashlyn.  
Both the Department and the guardian ad litem recommended termination of 
the mother’s parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption. 
 
[¶7]  Contrary to the mother’s contentions, there is sufficient evidence to 
support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one 
ground of parental unfitness, and that termination of the mother’s parental 
rights is in Ashlyn’s best interest.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), 
(b)(iv); In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105.  The court did not err or 
abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother’s parental 
rights, freeing Ashlyn for the permanency of adoption, is in the child’s best 
 
4 
interest.  See In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297; In re 
Jazmine L., 2004 ME 125, ¶¶ 14-16, 861 A.2d 1277.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Julie-Anne Blanchard, Esq., The Law Office of Julie-Anne Blanchard, LLC, 
Biddeford, for appellant Mother 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of 
the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2015-66 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY