Case Title: In re Children of Michelle C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2021 ME 61

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 
2021 ME 61 
Docket: 
And-21-159 
Submitted 
On Briefs: 
October 20, 2021 
Decided: 
December 7, 2021 
Revised: 
January 4, 2022 
Panel: 
STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, and HORTON, JJ. 
IN RE CHILDREN OF MICHELLE C. 
HORTON, J. 
[¶1]  In this consolidated appeal, Michelle C. challenges a judgment 
terminating her parental rights to her older child and an order finding that her 
younger child is in jeopardy in her care, both entered in the District Court 
(Lewiston, Archer, J.).  The father of the older child also challenges the judgment 
terminating his parental rights to the older child. We affirm both the judgment 
terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights to the older child and the 
jeopardy order as to the mother’s younger child. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The following facts and procedural history are drawn from the 
procedural record and the court’s findings, entered after the contested 
consolidated hearing, which are supported by competent evidence in the 
record.  See In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73, ¶ 2, 208 A.3d 380. 
 
2 
[¶3]  The older child has been in the care of the Department since his 
birth in 2018.  The Department petitioned to terminate both the mother’s and 
father’s parental rights to the older child in August 2020.  The younger child 
was born in November 2020 and was immediately placed in the care of the 
Department.1 
[¶4] At a contested summary preliminary hearing in November 2020
regarding the younger child, the mother raised for the first time the possibility 
that she has Native American heritage.  Based on the information that the 
mother provided, the Department contacted the Passamaquoddy Tribe at 
Pleasant Point, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, and the 
Aroostook Band of Micmacs to determine whether the mother is a member of
either of those tribes.2 
[¶5]  On February 22 and 24, 2021, the court held a consolidated hearing 
to consider (1) termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights to the
older child and (2) jeopardy of the younger child as to the mother.  At the 
hearing, the Department informed the court that it had heard only from the 
1  The identity of the father of the younger child is unknown. 
2  The Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs are the only federally-recognized 
Passamaquoddy and Micmac tribes in the United States.  See Indian Entities Recognized by and 
Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,554, 
7,554, 7,556 (Jan. 29, 2021). 
3 
Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, which indicated that the mother was 
not a member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe.  The mother testified once again 
that she believed that she was connected to the Passamaquoddy Tribe or the 
Micmac Tribe and that she was a member of the Micmac Tribe.  The mother’s 
grandmother also testified to having Chesapeake heritage but stated that she 
was not a member of any tribe.
[¶6]  The court held the record open until March 17 to receive further 
information regarding the mother’s tribal membership status to determine 
whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1901-1963 (LEXIS 
through Pub. L. No. 117-65, approved November 23, 2021, with a gap of Pub. L.
No. 117-58), was applicable to this case.  During that period, the Department 
also contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the Bureau), but it did not receive 
a response.  The Aroostook Band of Micmacs replied and indicated that the
mother was not a member, but the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township 
never responded separately from the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point.3
[¶7]  The court issued orders regarding both children on May 4, 2021.  
The court affirmatively concluded that ICWA was not applicable and found that 
3  The Department supplemented the record with this information via email pursuant to 
PMO-SJC-3 State of Maine Judicial Branch Pandemic Management Order (revised Dec. 14, 2020). 
 
4 
the testimony regarding possible Native American heritage was “intentionally 
vague and confusing.”  It then terminated the parental rights of both parents to 
the older child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2021).  The court also 
found jeopardy as to the mother regarding the younger child.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4035(2) (2021). 
[¶8] The mother and father timely appealed the judgment terminating
their parental rights to the older child, and the mother timely appealed the 
jeopardy order as to the younger child.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2021); M.R. 
App. P. 2B.  We consolidated the two appeals. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A. 
Indian Child Welfare Act 
[¶9]  The mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in 
concluding that ICWA did not apply to either of the children.  25 U.S.C.S. 
§§ 1901-1963.  ICWA applies when a child involved in a protective custody
proceeding is an “Indian child,” defined as a child who “is either (a) a member 
of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the 
biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.”  Id. § 1903(4); see id. § 1912.  
Because the court and the Department satisfied their joint obligation under 
ICWA to determine whether the children are Indian children, we hold that the 
5 
court did not err in concluding that ICWA did not apply and thus affirm the 
judgment and the order entered against the mother. 
[¶10]  In In re Trever I., we explained the obligation of the Department 
and the court to investigate eligibility for tribal membership in the context of 
ICWA.  2009 ME 59, ¶¶ 21-22, 973 A.2d 752.  We drew heavily upon a 1979 
guidance document (the Guidelines) from the Bureau because ICWA itself
contains only a general requirement that a tribe be notified when the court 
“knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved.”  Id. ¶¶ 16-21 
(quotation marks omitted) (quoting 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(a)); Guidelines for State 
Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584 (Nov. 26, 1979).  
We explained,
[T]he court is obligated to inquire if the child involved in a 
termination of parental rights proceeding is a member of an Indian 
tribe, or if a parent of the child is a member of an Indian tribe and 
the child is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Pursuant to
22 M.R.S. § 4032(2)(K), the Department shares this obligation. . . . 
[T]he party asserting the applicability of the ICWA has the burden 
to provide sufficient information to at least put the court or 
Department on notice that the child may be an “Indian child,” 
within the meaning of the ICWA, and that further inquiry is 
necessary. . . .  
If, as a result of information it receives, the Department or 
court has reason to believe that the child may be an Indian child, . . . 
the Department or court is obligated to verify the child’s status either 
through the Bureau or, if possible, through the tribe at issue. 
 
6 
Trever I., 2009 ME 59, ¶¶ 21-22, 973 A.2d 752 (emphasis added). 
[¶11]  In 2015, after our decision in Trever I., the Bureau significantly
revised the Guidelines.  They now provide that “[i]f there is any reason to 
believe that the child is an Indian child, the agency and State court must treat 
the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined that the child is not 
a member or is not eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” Guidelines for
State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 80 Fed. Reg. 
10,146, 10,151-52 (Feb. 25, 2015) (emphasis added).  In calling for a 
presumption of “Indian child” status unless and until it is affirmatively 
determined otherwise, the 2015 Guidelines are considerably stronger than the 
1979 version.  See id.  Although the updated Guidelines are not binding, their 
underlying policy goal is certainly in accord with ICWA, so we give deference to 
the 2015 Guidelines as we did to the 1979 version in Trever I.  2009 ME 59, 
¶¶ 18-22, 973 A.2d 752. 
[¶12]  Here both the Department and the court gave effect to the 
presumption recommended by the 2015 Guidelines in investigating whether
the children were eligible for tribal membership and ultimately determining
“that the child[ren] [were] not . . . eligible for tribal membership.”4  Guidelines 
4  The vague testimony from the mother’s grandmother about the mother’s possible Chesapeake 
heritage did not give the court “reason to know” that the children were Indian children based on a 
7 
for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 80 Fed. Reg. 
10,146, 10,152 (Feb. 25, 2015).  Although the mother met her burden “to 
provide sufficient information to at least put the court or Department on notice 
that the child[ren] may [have been] ‘Indian child[ren],’” Trever I., 2009 ME 59, 
¶ 21, 973 A.2d 752, the Department satisfied its obligation to investigate
whether the children were eligible for tribal membership by contacting the
relevant tribes and providing their responses to the court, so that the court 
could meet its own obligation.  The Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point and 
the Aroostook Band of Micmacs each confirmed that the mother was not a 
member.  Although the Department did not receive a separate response from 
the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, the response from the
Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point was sufficient because it confirmed 
that the mother was “currently not [a] member[] with the Passamaquoddy 
relationship to any tribe from the Chesapeake region.  25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(a) (LEXIS through Pub. L. 
No. 117-65, approved November 23, 2021, with a gap of Pub. L. No. 117-58).  The mother’s 
grandmother testified that she herself was not a member of any tribe, and the mother indicated the 
possibility that she had some connection only to the Micmac or Passamaquoddy tribes.  See 25 U.S.C.S. 
§ 1903(4) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 117-65, approved November 23, 2021, with a gap of Pub. L. No. 
117-58) (“‘Indian child’ means any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a 
member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological 
child of a member of an Indian tribe.”). 
 
8 
Tribe,” without limiting the response to Pleasant Point.5  The court therefore 
did not err in concluding that ICWA did not apply to either of the two children. 
B. 
The Father 
[¶13]  Contrary to the father’s contentions, the court did not err or abuse 
its discretion in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground 
of parental unfitness and in determining that termination of the father’s
parental rights is in the best interest of the older child.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iii) (2021); In re Child of Louise G., 2020 ME 87, ¶ 8, 
236 A.3d 445; In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶ 16, 889 A.2d 297. 
The entry is: 
Judgment terminating parental rights affirmed 
and jeopardy order affirmed. 
5  Although the Department contacted the Bureau and had not heard back by the time the court 
closed evidence, a response from the Bureau was unnecessary because the Department or court can 
“verify [a] child’s status either through the Bureau or, if possible, through the tribe at issue.”  In re
Trever I., 2009 ME 59, ¶ 22, 973 A.2d 752.