Case Title: In re Children of Jacob S.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020 ME 68

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 68 
Docket: 
Pen-19-501 
Submitted 
On Briefs: May 4, 2020 
Decided: 
May 14, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF JACOB S. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Jacob S., the father, and Jaime S., the mother, appeal from a judgment 
of the District Court (Lincoln, Stitham, J.) terminating their parental rights to 
their five children.1  Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the rehabilitation 
and reunification efforts made by the Department of Health and Human 
Services.  The father additionally challenges the court’s determination that the 
termination of his and the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best 
interests.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  The following facts are drawn from the court’s findings and from 
the procedural record.  See In re Children of Corey W., 2019 ME 4, ¶ 2, 
199 A.3d 683. 
                                         
1  Although several of the father’s relatives were granted intervenor status and the maternal 
grandmother was granted interested person status, those individuals are not involved in this appeal. 
 
2 
[¶3]  This matter began when the Department filed a petition for a child 
protection order and a request for a preliminary protection order regarding the 
children on April 28, 2017.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4032, 4034 (2020).  The petition 
alleged that the children were at risk due to their parents’ neglect, emotional 
abuse, and physical abuse.  The court (Mallonee, J.) granted the Department’s 
request for a preliminary protection order that same day and placed the 
children in the Department’s custody.  See id. § 4034(2).  The parents later 
waived the opportunity for a summary preliminary hearing.  See id. § 4034(4). 
[¶4]  The court (Stitham, J.) entered an agreed-to jeopardy order as to 
both parents in November 2017.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2020).  In that order, 
the court found that the children were in jeopardy as to the mother based on 
the mother’s neglect and abuse, which included hitting the children with a 
wooden backscratcher, punishing them with extremely hot and/or cold 
showers, and threatening to shoot herself and them.  The court found that the 
children were in jeopardy as to the father based on neglect and abuse, which 
included not protecting the children from the abuse and neglect of the mother, 
withholding food from them as a punishment, and making threatening 
statements to them.  Both parents agreed in the order that any visits with the 
children would occur “when therapeutically recommended.” 
 
3 
[¶5]  Throughout the case, all five children remained adamant that they 
did not want to see the parents.  To support reunification, the Department fired 
and replaced the children’s initial counselors when it became clear that those 
counselors did not support that goal.  The Department also made it clear to the 
relative with whom the children were placed that if she or other family 
members interfered with reunification, the children would be moved.  
Nevertheless, as a result of the children’s intractable positions and counselor 
recommendations that they should not be forced to visit with the parents, only 
one ninety-minute visit between the children and the parents occurred. 
[¶6]  In June 2018, the Department filed a petition to terminate the 
parents’ parental rights.  22 M.R.S. § 4052 (2020).  Thereafter, the parties 
agreed to designate a forensic psychologist as an expert to review the case and 
provide insight regarding the children’s unwillingness to visit with the parents 
and the lack of reunification progress.  The matter was continued by agreement 
several times because the forensic psychologist required more time to prepare 
her report.  When the forensic psychologist’s report was finally finished, the 
court held a five-day hearing on the termination petition in June and July 2019, 
during which it heard extensive testimony from witnesses including the 
 
4 
parents, the forensic psychologist, Department caseworkers, and various 
counselors. 
[¶7]  After receiving post-trial written closing arguments and proposed 
findings from the parties, the court entered an order terminating both parents’ 
parental rights in November 2019.  In that order, the court made the following 
findings: 
The Court finds that the parents did abuse the children while 
they were in the parents’ care.  The children have disclosed abuse 
at the hands of their parents to all six of their counselors, and [the 
guardian ad litem].  Each found the children credible.  Some of the 
disclosures were consistent with admissions made by the parents 
in their own testimony, in their conversations with the State Police, 
and with the Jeopardy language that they agreed to.  All of the 
children’s treating therapists found the children’s disclosures 
compelling, and observed physical reactions by the kids consistent 
with their reports and with kids who have been traumatized. . . . 
[The forensic psychologist] noted that sustained trauma-based 
symptoms cannot be coached, and that these symptoms have been 
exhibited since the time the children have come into care. 
 
[The father] has not made much progress in his reunification 
efforts.  In his testimony at the TPR hearing [the father] denied 
everything in the Jeopardy Order that he had previously agreed to.  
He also claimed that the children were not traumatized in his home 
and that the children were fine prior to being placed with his 
parents.  He essentially indicated that nothing inappropriate 
happened in his home, but if it did, it was the fault of his parents.  
[An evaluating psychologist] concluded that [the father] was not 
demonstrating empathy towards the children at the time of the 
evaluation he completed in . . . February 2018.  His testimony 
during the hearing indicated that he had not developed an 
understanding of his children’s needs, nor did he take 
 
5 
responsibility for the abuse that had occurred in his home.  
However it is painfully obvious that [the father] is completely 
unrealistic of the reality of where each of these children are 
emotionally and psychologically when he testified at the hearing on 
6/12/19, I would ask the Court to start visitation immediately and 
bring my kids home.  [The father] testified that what he agreed to in 
the Jeopardy Order is not true.  [The father] has not participated in 
parenting education despite what the Jeopardy Order states and 
what he agreed to. 
 
[The mother] has not made much progress in her 
reunification efforts.  Just as [the father] did, in [the mother’s] 
testimony at the TPR hearing she denied everything in the Jeopardy 
Order that she had previously agreed to.  [An evaluating 
psychologist] expressed concerns about [the mother’s] ability to 
empathize with the children.  [The mother] was able to 
acknowledge some wrong doing on her part, including physical and 
emotionally abusive behavior.  The Court does not find [the 
mother’s] counselor[’s] testimony that [the mother] has made 
significant progress on her issues credible.  [The mother] also lied 
to [a police detective] about the use of a backscratcher to hit the 
children, acknowledged that lie . . . , agreed to a Jeopardy finding 
about the use of a backscratcher in disciplining the children, and 
then denied using the backscratcher during the hearing.  She 
indicated that she used the methods promoted in [the parenting 
book] To Train Up a Child at the behest of her mother in law and 
indicated that she had never been taught how to be a mother by her 
own mother . . . . While [the mother] was able to demonstrate some 
insight about what the children might be feeling in her letter to [the 
oldest child] in the Spring of 2018, she then exhibited a lack of 
understanding regarding the children’s trauma by supporting 
placement of the children with her mother, who has no relationship 
with the children, and who she had claimed to be an alcoholic and 
abusive towards her. 
 
. . . .  
 
 
6 
From April 28, 2017, to the present, none of the children have 
expressed a willingness to visit with their parents.  [The GAL] 
became the third GAL in this case on 10/18/17.  Since then at each 
and every visit with the children she discussed the possibility of 
contact with their parents and the children in various ways 
expressed that they did not want to visit with their parents.  At no 
time have any of the six therapists who have treated the children 
recommended contact between the children and the parents.  All 
have indicated that the children were not ready for contact with 
their parents, and to force them to visit against their express 
wishes would be traumatic to the children. . . . 
 
This Court concludes that speculation on what might have 
been if the children had been placed at the outset in a foster home 
and kept together[,] or if the children had been separated, with 
each living in his/her own separate foster home[,] or if any of the 
numerous counselors were more skilled or tried something 
different . . . is just not the point.  What could have happened, did.  
This mother and this father each abused each of these children, 
causing each child to go a dark place, . . . causing the children at the 
hands of [the father] to be entrusted to [relatives], causing the 
children to go into DHHS custody[,] and so on and so forth until 
these parents and these five children all arrived at the last day of 
that TPR hearing.  The Court concludes that any possibility of 
reunification of any of these children with their parents is years 
away, far more than two years—if at all. 
 
[The children] each need permanency.  Each of these children 
deserves certainty and stability.  [The relative with whom they live] 
has given them that.  Instability and impermanency are contrary to 
the welfare of each of these children.  The children cannot wait 
years for permanency on the off chance that the children may be 
able to reunify with their parents.  Each child has developed a close 
attachment to [the relative with whom the children live] . . . and 
most encouragingly each child has started the process of being an 
individual.  [The relative] is meeting the children’s needs, and any 
removal from [the relative’s] home, and any separation of the 
siblings would be devastating to each and every one of them.  Such 
 
7 
would not be in any of their best interests.  The reality is that the 
best interests of these children requires their remaining in the 
nurturing and stable home provided by [the relative] who wants to 
adopt each and every one of them. . . . 
 
. . . . 
 
The Court further finds that DHHS has made reasonable 
efforts to reunify and rehabilitate the parents with each child and to 
develop and finalize permanency plans for each child.  The Court 
takes particular note of the Department[’s] commendable efforts of: 
discharging the first batch of counselors; and most noteworthy, 
paying for the additional costs to secure the report of [the forensic 
psychologist] and her lengthy testimony as well.[2]  The Court 
further finds that the Department’s proposal of adoption as the 
permanency plan for each child is appropriate and in each child’s 
best interests at this time. 
 
[¶8]  These findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence 
except as noted supra n.2, are sufficient to support the court’s ultimate findings 
that the parents are unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take 
responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.  See 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (2020); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 
854 A.2d 195. 
                                         
2  Although the record reflects that the forensic psychologist’s work was the result of cooperation 
between the Department and the parents, the record does not clearly indicate the extent to which the 
Department paid for some of the forensic psychologist’s costs.  Nevertheless, neither parent 
challenges that aspect of the court’s judgment, and given the other evidence supporting the court’s 
determination that the Department’s reunification efforts were reasonable, any error would be 
harmless.  See In re Stephenie F., 2018 ME 163, ¶ 2 n.2, 198 A.3d 203. 
 
8 
[¶9]  We find no merit in the parents’ arguments concerning the 
sufficiency of the Department’s efforts to rehabilitate them and reunify them 
with the children.  The court carefully considered the Department’s 
reunification efforts, and its finding that those efforts were reasonable in the 
challenging circumstances of this case is supported by competent evidence.  See 
In re Child of Nicholas W., 2020 ME 16, ¶ 8, --- A.3d ---; In re Hannah S., 
2016 ME 32, ¶ 12, 133 A.3d 590. 
[¶10]  Finally, the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion 
when it determined that the termination of the parents’ parental rights was in 
the children’s best interests.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2020); In re 
Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.  The father contends that the 
children have a therapeutic need to have contact with him and the mother, and 
that the court should have kept the case open.  Contrary to the father’s 
argument, the court did not err or abuse its discretion when it determined that 
the children needed permanency after more than two years in the 
Department’s custody, and that such permanency would be best accomplished 
by freeing the children for adoption. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wayne Doane, Esq., Exeter, for appellant mother 
 
Erik T. Crocker, Esq., Farrell, Rosenblatt & Russell, Bangor, for appellant father 
 
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 
 
 
Lincoln District Court docket number PC-2017-13 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY