Case Title: In re Child of Stephenie F.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 163

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 163 
Docket: 
Som-18-269 
Submitted 
On Briefs: November 28, 2018 
Decided: 
December 11, 2018 
 
 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF STEPHENIE F.  
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Stephenie F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Skowhegan, Benson, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2017).1  Pursuant 
to the procedure outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139, 
counsel for the mother filed a brief indicating that there are no arguable issues 
of merit for appeal.  We entered an order permitting the mother to personally 
file a supplemental brief on or before September 28, 2018, but the mother did 
not do so.  We affirm the judgment.  
 
[¶2]  In its judgment, the court made the following findings of fact 
pertaining to the mother’s ability to parent her child: 
The Department of Health and Human Services (“the Department” 
or “DHHS”) filed a Petition for Child Protection Order on 
                                         
1  The child’s father does not appeal from the termination of his parental rights.    
 
 
2 
July 31, 2017.  On that same date, the Department requested and 
received an Order of Preliminary Child Protection placing [the 
child] in the temporary custody of the Department.  A summary 
preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 10, 2017.  On that 
date, [the mother] (custodial parent), did not appear as she was 
incarcerated and no hearing was requested by the mother 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §4034(3).   
 
A Jeopardy Order entered on November 2, 2017, found that [the 
child] was in circumstances of jeopardy to her health and welfare 
in the care of her mother . . . .  [The mother] was not present for the 
scheduled Jeopardy Hearing and the Order entered allowed [the 
mother] to file any objections to the Order within 14 days of its 
issuance.  [The mother] filed no objections.  The jeopardy order 
found in relevant part:  
 
[The child] is in circumstances of jeopardy in the care 
and custody of her mother . . . due to [the mother]’s 
substance abuse.  [The child] was found unsupervised 
and naked in the home while [the mother] was 
inebriated, unconscious and incoherent by police.  
[The child] is a vulnerable child who relies on her 
caregiver to provide for all her needs and protect her 
from Jeopardy, [the mother] has been unable to meet 
[the child]’s needs at this time.    
 
The Jeopardy Order outlined with specificity [the services] that 
[the mother] was to engage in to ameliorate Jeopardy.  Those 
services were: participation in a substance abuse evaluation 
including a level of care assessment and follow evaluator 
recommendations; medication management; random observed 
drug screens; sign all necessary releases requested by the 
Department and GAL; establish safe and stable housing free from 
domestic violence, drug[s], and alcohol; refrain from any and all 
criminal involvements; allow unannounced and announced visits 
to the home; keep the Department, GAL, and legal counsel updated 
on any changes in circumstances; attend all scheduled visits with 
[the child]; and participate in Family Team Meetings.    
 
 
3 
Referrals were made for [the mother] to receive a level of care 
assessment . . . .  [The mother] attended 1 appointment and did not 
follow through or reengage in the service.  Shortly after the 
appointment she attended she was again incarcerated.  [The 
mother] then missed her transportation ride that was set up for 
her.  Visitation was scheduled for two days a week.  [The mother] 
often missed her ride or no-showed her scheduled visitations with 
[the child].  [The mother] did not appear for the scheduled jeopardy 
hearing and she additionally failed to surrender herself to the 
county jail pursuant to a stay of execution granted in a pending 
criminal matter.  A warrant was issued for [a] probation violation 
and [the mother] was arrested.  She remained incarcerated from 
November 21, 2017, to approximately April 12, 2018.  A Family 
Team Meeting was held with [the mother] on February 21, 2018.  
[The mother] discussed being willing to do anything to reunify with 
[the child].  [The mother] stated she would consider residing at a 
homeless shelter closer to her mother and [the child] upon her 
release.  The Department continued to express that her 
relationship 
with 
[her 
boyfriend] 
was 
problematic 
for 
reunification.  There have been numerous domestic violence 
incidents between the two.   
 
Upon her release from incarceration, [the mother] continued to 
drink, was the victim of severe physical domestic violence by two 
different individuals, moved to 4 different locations and was living 
at a shelter at the time of the TPR hearing.  [The mother] testified 
that she began drinking when she was 16-years-old and was now 
29-years-old.  She attended one substance abuse treatment 
program when she was pregnant with [the child] but left the 
program early and did not complete it.  During the reunification 
case she attended 2 scheduled appointments with [a counseling 
service] and no-showed the rest citing transportation issues.  She 
did not attend any medication management appointments.  She did 
not engage in or complete an IOP [intensive outpatient program] 
and was drug screening for probation but not for the Department 
despite requests for her to do so.  [The mother] was inconsistent 
with attending visitations with [the child] prior to her 
incarceration and upon her release presented as mentally unstable 
 
 
4 
which caused the Department to place visitation on hold until her 
mental health could be assessed.  During her incarceration, [the 
mother] was offered several services including case management, 
Prime for Life (Alcohol Treatment), Job Readiness, Seeking Safety 
(Domestic Violence education and support), and IOP.  [The mother] 
did not participate in any of the services she was offered and signed 
up for.[2]  The Department also requested that [the mother] work 
with her social worker at the jail to develop a strong relapse plan 
to avoid relapsing on alcohol after her release.  [The mother] did 
not create a relapse prevention plan.  [The mother] consistently 
blamed DHHS, KVCAP, the jail social worker and others for her lack 
of engagement in services and lack of progress towards 
reunification with [the child].  She does not take any responsibility 
for the reasons [the child] was removed or her lack of reunification 
success.    
 
[The child] is a 3-year-old child that is dependent on her daily 
needs being met from her caregivers.  [The child] was born drug 
affected.  Due to some of the trauma of abuse and neglect that she 
experienced in her home she developed a scared and shy demeanor 
around many adults.  She has since developed great bonds within 
her family unit and appropriate attachment figures.  [The child] is 
engaged in Speech Therapy Services to help with her speech delay.  
[The child] is placed with maternal grandparents . . . whom are also 
licensed foster parents.  [The grandparents] are meeting [the 
child]’s medical, emotional, and physical needs, and [the child] is 
thriving in her foster home.    
 
                                         
2  The mother and her Department caseworker both testified that the mother actually did 
participate in some services while in jail.  The caseworker, however, testified that the mother 
participated in these services for only a “couple of weeks” before being released.  Given that the 
mother did not make a good faith effort to engage in the services required by her reunification plan 
before her incarceration, during all but the last weeks of her nearly five-month incarceration, or after 
her release, it is highly probable that the court’s misstatement did not affect its finding that the 
mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child; therefore, the 
error was harmless.  See In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 34, 65 A.3d 1260.  Furthermore, the misstatement 
does not undermine the other two grounds of parental unfitness found by the court, and each ground, 
standing on its own, supports a termination of parental rights.  See In re M.E., 2016 ME 1, ¶ 10, 
131 A.3d 898.   
 
 
5 
. . . . 
 
. . . .  After almost a year of no engagement in reunification services 
to ameliorate the jeopardy she poses to her child, the clock has run 
out and it is time for [the child] to have the permanency she 
deserves.   
 
(emphasis omitted). 
 
 
[¶3]  These findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in 
the record except as noted, supra note 2, are sufficient to support the court’s 
determination that the mother is (1) unwilling or unable to protect the child 
from jeopardy and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a 
time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and (2) unwilling 
or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably 
calculated to meet the child’s needs.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii); 
see also In re Meena H., 2018 ME 13, ¶ 3, 177 A.3d 1276.  They are also sufficient 
to support the court’s finding that the mother has failed to make a good faith 
effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4041(1-A)(B), 
4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv) (2017), and that termination of the mother’s parental 
rights is in the child’s best interests, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).  See also 
In re Children of Amber L., 2018 ME 55, ¶ 4, 184 A.3d 19.   
The entry is: 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aaron B. Rowden, Esq., Waterville, for appellant mother 
 
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief 
 
 
Skowhegan District Court docket number PC-2017-37 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY