Case Title: In re Child of Angela H.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 139

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 139 
Docket: 
Yor-18-100 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
October 4, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF ANGELA H. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Angela H. appeals from an order entered by the District Court 
(Springvale, Foster, J.) finding that her minor child is in jeopardy pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017).  The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 
supporting the court’s finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
child is in jeopardy.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  The Department of Health and Human Services filed a child 
protection petition against the mother as to this child in September of 2017,1 
alleging that the mother neglected the child’s medical needs and failed to 
adequately supervise the child.  After a two-day testimonial hearing, by a 
decision entered on February 21, 2018, the court found the following facts by a 
                                         
1  The mother has other children who are not at issue in this appeal.  The Department also 
instituted child protection proceedings against the father, but the father agreed to a finding of 
jeopardy and is not a party to this appeal.   
 
2 
preponderance of the evidence, each of which is supported by competent 
evidence in the record.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2).   
[¶3]  In 2011, concerns were raised with the Department regarding 
whether this child was receiving appropriate medical care for his Type 1 
diabetes, with which he was diagnosed as a young child.  The mother, with 
whom the child primarily resides, received services designed to promote the 
child’s regular attendance at medical appointments and monitor the necessary 
testing of the child’s blood.  After the child was hospitalized twice for diabetic 
ketoacidosis, the Department again worked with the mother regarding the 
child’s medical needs.  The mother reported then that she was “unwilling to 
monitor her son’s testing as he needed to learn how to care for his own medical 
needs in regard to his chronic condition.”  The child was eight years old at the 
time.  The child’s medical providers again referred the family to the Department 
in 2016 when the child failed to attend scheduled medical appointments.   
[¶4]  In April of 2017, the child was expelled from school for possession 
of marijuana on school grounds.  The school listed the tasks the child was 
required to complete before he could be readmitted to school, including 
counseling, community service, and certain homework assignments.  The child 
 
3 
did not do so before the end of the school year and was not readmitted until 
October of 2017.   
[¶5]  Meanwhile, as a consequence of his expulsion, the child’s regular 
visits with the school nurse to monitor his blood sugar were discontinued.  The 
child also missed multiple medical appointments between June and August of 
2017, notwithstanding the efforts of his medical providers to engage the 
mother in addressing the child’s needs.  In September, the child was again 
hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis.  The mother complained that she would 
have to be near her son on a constant basis to monitor the child’s health, stated 
that she hoped that being hospitalized would motivate the child to better 
manage his condition, and expressed anger at being expected to take the child 
to the hospital after her long work day.  On multiple days in November and 
December of 2017, the child left school early and, on one occasion, had to be 
taken to the hospital, because his blood sugar numbers were outside the norm.  
Although the mother has opined that the child’s difficulties in managing his 
diabetes are related to a mental health issue, she has not followed through on 
multiple opportunities to obtain counseling for him.   
[¶6]  The court found, 
The Guardian [ad litem] concluded that the parents’ inability to 
communicate and reach agreement on how to manage their son’s 
 
4 
diagnosis and respond to medical emergencies has resulted in 
inconsistent care and unsustainable plans that have placed [the 
child] at risk of physical harm.  Throughout this case, [the mother] 
rejected responsibility for any of the difficulties in her life and often 
provided explanations for events that portrayed her as the victim 
of others.   
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
As the Guardian points out, both of [the child’s] parents are 
able to articulate what needs to be done to properly manage their 
son’s diabetes as well as the dangers posed by a failure to do so.  At 
trial, [the mother] gave a thorough and cogent description of what 
daily testing and monitoring entails.  Even when she was without 
insurance, she has apparently ensured that [the child] still has the 
supplies, medicine, even snacks he requires for his condition.  
Despite that, [the mother] has been unwilling or unable to support 
her son in a manner that ensures the condition is appropriately 
addressed.  At the heart of this issue is [the mother’s] long-held 
conviction that her son should be able to manage his condition 
independent of any oversight by her or [the father].   
 
 
At the [family team meeting] on September 21, 2017 [the 
mother] reiterated her conviction that [the child] was old enough 
to take care of himself.  Even as she maintained that, [the child] was 
in the hospital for the fourth time for diabetic ketoacidosis. . . .  In 
her testimony, [the mother] pointed out that her son was only three 
years short of being an adult.  She acknowledged that he has not 
always been truthful about when and what he has eaten, critical 
information when assessing his condition.  Yet she had no 
contingency plan to address that reality.   
 
 
. . . . 
 
[The mother] seems to have abdicated responsibility for her 
son on a number of fronts.  Although she insisted it had been very 
important to her that [the child] be readmitted to school, her 
explanations for the delay were nebulous, unconvincing, and in 
 
5 
some instances unreliable.  The Court agrees with the Guardian’s 
assessment that no action was undertaken on [the child’s] school 
re-entry plan until he and the Department’s caseworker became 
involved . . . .   
 
. . . . 
 
 
[The mother] pledged to follow the current safety plan, even 
if the Department is not involved with her family.  Her history 
suggests otherwise.  This is a critical time for [the child].  Failure to 
support and supervise him as he struggles to gain mastery over his 
diabetes could be fatal.  The family history documents a chronic 
inability to follow through on essential components of [the child’s] 
life.  While there have been observable improvements in [the 
child’s] health and ability to manage his own care, there is every 
reason to believe those would fade away without mandatory 
oversight from the Department and the court.   
 
(Footnote omitted.)  Based on these findings, the court determined, 
Jeopardy in this matter consists of the risk of physical and 
emotional harm arising from the parent’s unwillingness and/or 
inability to ensure appropriate support and supervision for [the 
child’s] medical care, education, and mental health treatment.  [The 
mother] has repeatedly failed to ensure [the child’s] medical needs 
are met and failed to take expeditious action to ensure he was 
re-enrolled in school.   
 
The court ordered that the child remain in the mother’s custody subject to 
certain conditions.2  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6), 4035(2), (3), 4036(1)(A)-(C) 
                                         
2  Those conditions included that the child shall primarily reside with the mother, the mother must 
allow the Department caseworker and the guardian ad litem access to the child, the mother must 
comply with the Department’s requirements for visitation and contact, and the mother must sign 
releases to allow the Department access to the child’s records.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1)(A)-(C) (2017) 
(allowing the court, in fashioning a protection order, to order “[n]o change in custody”; 
“[d]epartmental supervision of the child and family in the child’s home”; and “[t]hat the child, the 
custodians, the parents and other appropriate family members accept treatment or services to 
 
6 
(2017).  The mother timely appeals the court’s finding of jeopardy.  See 22 
M.R.S. § 4006 (2017); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
 
[¶7]  The mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support 
a finding of jeopardy because she has alleviated all of the Department’s 
concerns and because there is no evidence that she presents jeopardy to the 
child on a prospective basis.  We review the court’s findings for clear error, and 
we will uphold the jeopardy determination if there is any competent evidence 
in the record to support it.  See In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶ 9, 140 A.3d 1226. 
[¶8]  We agree with the mother that “the question before the court is 
necessarily whether there is prospective jeopardy,” but we note that “[e]vidence 
of past jeopardy is relevant to the future, and in the case of a custodial parent it 
is highly probative.”  In re Tabitha R., 2003 ME 76, ¶ 7, 827 A.2d 830.  Here, 
there is competent evidence to support the court’s finding that the jeopardy the 
mother presents to the child is prospective and not just historical; there was 
evidence that the poor management of the child’s medical condition has been a 
chronic problem for at least seven years, the mother is unlikely to adhere to the 
                                         
ameliorate the circumstances related to the jeopardy,” among other authorized dispositions); see also 
In re Alivia B., 2010 ME 112, ¶ 10, 8 A.3d 625 (“The statutory scheme [of section 4036] authorizes the 
court to permit a child to remain in a parent’s custody even after a finding of jeopardy while that 
parent engages in reunification and related services.” (citation omitted)).   
 
7 
safety plan necessary to prevent future problems with his diabetes without 
Department oversight, and the mother continues to expect the child to manage 
his diabetes without adequate supervision or assistance.  Because the court’s 
findings are supported by competent record evidence, we do not disturb the 
court’s determination that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy.  See 
22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6), 4035; In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶ 9, 140 A.3d 1226.   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen H. Shea, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Portland, for appellant 
mother 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Springvale District Court docket number PC-2017-31 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY