Case Title: In re Children of Alice R.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 33

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 33 
Docket: 
Som-17-396 
Submitted  
On Briefs: February 26, 2018 
Decided: 
March 15, 2018 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF ALICE R. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The mother and father of a son appeal from a judgment of the 
District Court (Skowhegan, Stanfill, J.) terminating their parental rights to the 
child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii) 
(2017).  The mother also appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Skowhegan, Stanfill, J.) finding jeopardy to their daughter’s health and welfare 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017).  After reviewing the evidence, we affirm. 
[¶2]  The court held a consolidated hearing on the Department’s petitions 
for the termination of the parents’ parental rights to their son and for a 
jeopardy order in the child protection case regarding their daughter on June 26 
and 27, 2017.1   
                                         
1  The daughter was born after the Department filed a petition to terminate the mother’s and 
father’s parental rights to their son.  
 
2 
[¶3]  Based on the testimony presented at the hearing and other 
competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear and convincing 
evidence that (1) the parents were unwilling or unable to protect their son from 
jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is 
reasonably calculated to meet his needs; (2) the parents are unwilling or unable 
to take responsibility for their son within a time which is reasonably calculated 
to meet his needs; and (3) termination of their parental rights is in the best 
interest of their son.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii).  The court 
also found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their daughter was in 
circumstances of jeopardy to her health and welfare.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2).  
The court based both its termination decision and its jeopardy determination 
on the following findings of fact:  
In order to reunify, both parents were required to participate 
in individual counseling, participate in Maine Families, take 
parenting classes, and secure a safe, stable home environment free 
from emotional dysregulation.  [The father’s] counseling was to 
include a component for risk reduction of sexual re-offense.  Later 
in the case, domestic violence education was added for [the 
mother].  Although the parents have participated in many of the 
service requirements, the court finds that their participation was 
incomplete, that they have failed to acquire the necessary basic 
skills to be safe parents, and that [the father] continues to pose a 
significant risk of violence to his family.   
 
[D]espite parenting classes and “hand over hand” 
supervision, both parents still need a great deal of prompting after 
 
3 
over a year in order to parent.  [The mother] in particular still 
needs assistance or prompting in how to hold a baby, to burp the 
baby, to support the baby’s head, to change diapers, and to prepare 
a bottle. . . .  While [the father’s] skills are better, he also continues 
to need prompting in caring for the children after all this time.  The 
supervisors have had to step in with safety concerns.  In short, the 
court is persuaded that although these parents love their children 
very much, neither parent has the basic parenting skills needed to 
safely raise their children.  Moreover, those circumstances are 
unlikely to change given the extensive interventions that have 
occurred over the last 16 months or so without much success.   
 
The court is also concerned about past abuse as well as [the 
father’s] potential for violence to his family in the future.  [The 
father] has two domestic violence convictions involving a past 
partner.  He was convicted of an assault as a juvenile that involved 
sexual abuse of a young child.  He was evaluated in connection with 
this case, and the court is persuaded he is at very high risk for 
recidivism and violence.   
 
The court believes there has been threatening and coercive 
behavior in [the mother and father’s] relationship, if not actual 
violence.  Although [the mother] now denies any abuse in the 
relationship, she certainly was saying differently in January when 
the Guardian ad litem, her lawyer, the case worker and her case 
manager were all involved in trying to help her leave [the father].  
[The father] admits he threatened to burn her belongings; [the 
mother] denies he would ever do such a thing.   
 
Most importantly, neither parent admits any abusive 
behaviors in this relationship, and neither demonstrates any 
insight that would prevent such behaviors in the future.  The court 
is particularly struck by [the father’s] assertions to this court and 
to others that he would never be violent to a child because they are 
too young to speak up and stress him out.  Rather, he asserts he is 
only violent with adults because they know what buttons to push, 
an assertion that provides little reassurance as to the future for this 
family.   
 
4 
 
[¶4]  Both parents timely appealed the order terminating their parental 
rights to their son; only the mother timely appealed the court’s judgment 
finding jeopardy to their daughter’s health and welfare.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 
(2017); M.R. App. P. 2B.  On November 13 and 14, 2017, pursuant to the process 
outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139, counsel for the 
mother and counsel for the father filed appellate briefs outlining the factual and 
procedural history of the case and stating that they believed that there are no 
arguable issues of merit for an appeal.  In an order dated November 17, 2017, 
we granted both parents an enlargement of time to file supplemental briefs.  
Neither parent filed a supplemental brief, and we granted the Department’s 
motion requesting that we consider the appeal without briefing from the 
Department.   
[¶5]  The record evidence supports the court’s findings of parental 
unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ 
parental rights was in their son’s best interest.  See In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, 
¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345.  Further, the court’s jeopardy findings are supported by 
competent evidence in the record that can rationally be understood to establish 
as more likely than not that their daughter was in circumstances of jeopardy to 
her health and welfare.  See In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶¶ 9, 13, 
 
5 
140 A.3d 1226 (holding that a court may make a jeopardy determination with 
respect to one child by relying on evidence of a parent’s behavior toward 
another child). 
The entry is: 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Elissa J. Roberts, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant Mother 
 
Caitlin Ross Wahrer, Esq., Chester & Vestal, P.A., Portland, for appellant Father 
 
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief 
 
 
Skowhegan District Court docket number PC-2016-9 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY