Case Title: In re Child of Stacy H.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020 ME 66

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 66 
Docket: 
Aro-19-509 
Submitted 
On Briefs: May 4, 2020 
Decided: 
May 12, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF STACY H. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Stacy H. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Presque Isle, 
Nelson, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child.  The mother argues that 
there were insufficient findings and evidence to support the court’s 
determination that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best 
interest.  We affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The Department of Health and Human Services initiated child 
protection proceedings against the mother and father of this child by filing a 
child protection petition on December 12, 2017, alleging that the then 
eighteen-month-old child had been taken to the hospital for possibly ingesting 
the mother’s prescribed medication.1  See 22 M.R.S. § 4032 (2020).  The 
                                         
1  The Department did not initially seek a preliminary protection order because it had reached an 
agreement with the mother for her to retain custody of the child with a safety plan in place.   
 
2 
Department also alleged that the mother had a long history of substance abuse 
issues, placing the child at risk of exposure to drugs, drug paraphernalia, and 
dangerous individuals; had exposed the child to domestic violence; and had 
neglected her older child.2   
[¶3]  On March 2, 2018, the court (O’Mara, J.) entered a jeopardy order 
with the mother’s agreement, finding jeopardy to the child from the mother’s 
struggles with drug addiction, her use of methamphetamine and amphetamines 
on multiple occasions during the course of the child protection proceedings, the 
threat of neglect to the child, and the child’s exposure to domestic violence.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2020).   
[¶4]  The Department sought a preliminary protection order on 
August 10, 2018, alleging that the mother was selling drugs out of her home, 
was not participating in substance abuse counseling, was exposing the child to 
potential abuse by visitors, had been overheard yelling at the child, and had 
relapsed on methamphetamine.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) (2020).  The court 
(Nelson, J.) entered a preliminary protection order that day, placing the child in 
the Department’s custody.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(2) (2020).  The mother waived 
                                         
2  The court later terminated the father’s parental rights.  Because the father does not appeal from 
that judgment, we discuss the facts and procedure only as they relate to the mother. 
 
3 
her opportunity for a summary preliminary hearing.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) 
(2020).   
[¶5]  A year later, on August 22, 2019, the Department petitioned for the 
termination of the mother’s parental rights.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4052 (2020).  After 
a two-day testimonial hearing, by judgment dated December 5, 2019, the court 
found the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.3  See In re Child of 
Olivia F., 2019 ME 149, ¶ 3, 217 A.3d 1106.   
This case involves chronic substance abuse problems . . . and 
significant domestic violence issues in the home. . . . A domestic 
violence incident prompted Department intervention with the 
family in February of 2017 . . . .   
 
Mother has had a drug problem since she was a teenager.  She 
made some progress in her late twenties . . . . That progress came 
to an end when she . . . began using bath salts approximately six 
years ago.  This caused her life . . . to completely fall apart.  She has 
been . . . struggling with her addiction and mental health issues 
since that time.   
 
After attending an intensive inpatient treatment program 
with [the child] in the spring of 2018 following the entry of the 
Jeopardy Order, mother returned to the community and again was 
using illegal drugs.  She admitted to using methamphetamine while 
[the child] was in her care in August of 2018. . . . Rather than take 
responsibility for her slip-ups, mother blamed the Department and 
her providers.   
                                         
3  The court entered judicial review orders on July 6, 2018 (Soucy, J.); October 25, 2018 (Nelson, J.); 
and February 28, 2019, maintaining the Department’s custody of the child and establishing a 
permanency plan of reunification with the mother.  By a judicial review order entered on 
December 18, 2019, the court established a permanency plan of adoption for the child.   
 
4 
 
[M]other completed the intensive outpatient program in 
February of 2019.  It does not appear that she gained any insight 
from the program.  In May of 2019, mother again was abusing 
prescription medication that she allegedly located among her 
things when she was moving to a new apartment.  In addition, 
mother was using methamphetamine again as well.  She was 
completely overwhelmed, even though [the child] was not in her 
care.  She again blamed her providers for failing her.   
 
Despite the identification early on in the case of a significant 
need for mother being mental health counseling, mother did 
virtually nothing to follow up and engage in mental health 
treatment services. . . . Without proper attention to, and treatment 
of, her mental health issues, which has not occurred to this point, 
mother will be unable to effectively parent [the child] due to the 
co-occurrence of her substance abuse disorder and mental health 
diagnoses.   
 
When the case hit its most critical stage, with the prospect of 
a termination of parental rights looming, mother failed to put forth 
much effort at attending to her substance abuse treatment needs, 
attending only a few sessions.  At the hearing, her current 
substance abuse treatment provider indicated that she was again 
in the intensive outpatient treatment program, which is a program 
for the beginning of the recovery process.  There were many excuses 
for the lack of participation presented at the hearing, none of them 
credible.   
 
Mother has exhibited a lack of understanding of how her 
mental health and substance abuse issues have caused her much 
misery in her life.  She takes very little, if any responsibility for the 
way her life is now.  Whenever she is overwhelmed, which happens 
easily, she resorts to abusing substances. . . .   
 
. . . . 
 
 
5 
. . . The court finds that permanency is important for [the 
child].  She is dependent on others for her care and must have 
consistent care.   
  
. . . [The mother is] not able to effectively manage [her] own 
care, much less care for this child.  [Her] lack of success in 
addressing the domestic violence issues, mental health issues, and 
substance abuse issues as well as [her] chronic instability make it 
unlikely that [she] will be able to provide the child permanency at 
any time in the foreseeable future, if ever.  In light of the child’s age 
and her need for stability, predictability and adequate care, she 
simply cannot wait to see if at some point in the future [the mother] 
makes sufficient progress in dealing with [her] issues to consider 
moving forward with reunification.  It is in [the child’s] best 
interest that she be provided that stability, predictability and 
adequate care now by way of a termination of her [mother’s] 
parental rights.   
 
The delay in this case has had a negative effect on the child.  
She has been in limbo while her [mother has] been given time to 
work on [her] own issues. . . . The child has been living with her 
paternal aunt since the spring of 2019.  The child’s . . . behaviors 
have improved in her new placement.  Her aunt has been a 
tremendous resource for the child and actively advocates for her 
needs.  The child is thriving in her aunt’s home.  The stability that a 
termination of parental rights would provide is in the child’s best 
interest so that she can achieve permanence.   
 
[¶6]  Based on these findings, the court terminated the mother’s parental 
rights to the child on the grounds that she is unwilling or unable to protect the 
child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child 
within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that 
termination is in the child’s best interest.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), 
 
6 
(b)(i), (ii) (2020).  The mother timely appeals.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2020); 
M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶7]  The mother challenges the court’s finding that termination of her 
parental rights was in the best interest of the child.  We review for clear error 
the court’s factual findings supporting its best interest determination, and we 
will not disturb those findings if there is any competent evidence in the record 
to support them.  In re Child of Olivia F., 2019 ME 149, ¶ 5, 217 A.3d 1106.  We 
review the court’s ultimate best interest determination for an abuse of 
discretion.  Id.   
 
[¶8]  Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court adequately 
considered the child’s best interest when it terminated the mother’s parental 
rights.  The statute requires the court to consider “the best interest of the child, 
the needs of the child, including the child's age, the child’s attachments to 
relevant persons, periods of attachments and separation, the child’s ability to 
integrate into a substitute placement or back into the parent’s home and the 
child’s physical and emotional needs.”  22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (2) 
(2020).  It does not require the court to issue written findings addressing every 
component of a best interest analysis, see In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶¶ 13-19, 
 
7 
959 A.2d 734, nor was the court bound to accept the evidence of best interest 
offered by the mother, see In re Children of James B., 2020 ME 14, 
¶ 10, --- A.3d ---.  The court expressly made several findings regarding the 
child’s best interest, including that the child needs predictability and stability 
in her life, that she is thriving and her behavioral issues have improved while 
in her aunt’s care, and that the aunt provides tremendous support to the child.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4050(2)-(3) (2020); In re Child of Ronald W., 2018 ME 107, ¶ 11, 
190 A.3d 1029 (“[T]he court’s order indicates that it carefully and 
appropriately considered the child’s needs for stability and permanency . . . .”).  
Those findings were supported by sufficient record evidence presented at the 
termination hearing.4  See In re Child of Sherri Y., 2019 ME 162, ¶ 7, 221 A.3d 
120 (“[A] court may draw from the same findings in making its unfitness and 
best interest determinations.”).   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                         
4  Although the mother does not challenge the court’s findings regarding parental unfitness, those 
findings, too, are supported by competent record evidence.  See In re Child of Olivia F., 2019 ME 149, 
¶ 3, 217 A.3d 1106.   
 
8 
 
Allan Hanson, Esq, Caribou, for appellant Mother 
 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Presque Isle District Court docket number PC-2017-30 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY