Case Title: In re I.R.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015 ME 93

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2015 ME 93 
Docket: 
Cum-14-476 
Submitted 
On Briefs: July 1, 2015 
Decided: 
July 28, 2015 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE I.R. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The mother of I.R. appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Portland, Powers, J.) terminating her parental rights to the child pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2014).  The mother argues that there is insufficient 
evidence in the record to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing 
evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness.  We affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The record supports the following findings of the court by clear and 
convincing evidence.  See In re M.S., 2014 ME 54, ¶ 13, 90 A.3d 443. 
[¶3]  The mother suffers from a significant mental illness.  Due to concerns 
about the effect of that illness on her mental capacity, the court assigned the 
mother her own guardian ad litem in these proceedings.  The mother spent time in 
psychiatric facilities in 2013 and 2014, and has a history of suicidal thoughts.  The 
mother lived in multiple states while this case was pending. 
 
2 
[¶4]  The Department of Health and Human Services initiated child 
protection proceedings concerning I.R. in 2012, while he was still in the hospital 
after having been born two months premature.  The Department alleged that the 
mother has schizo-affective disorder, for which she does not consistently take her 
medication; in the forty days the child spent in the hospital after his birth, the 
mother spent very little time with him and did not understand the nature of the 
child’s needs or the seriousness of his medical condition; and the mother had 
agreed that she was uncomfortable caring for the child alone.1  The mother later 
agreed to a finding of jeopardy concerning the child based on her untreated mental 
health issues, her inability to care for the child’s daily needs, her inability to care 
for the child’s particular medical and developmental needs, and her lack of overall 
stability.  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6), 4035 (2014). 
[¶5]  Since child protection proceedings began, the mother has not engaged 
in any reunification services, including mental health counseling or parenting 
education.  The mother also has not visited the child with any consistency; in the 
summer of 2014, for example, she saw him six times.  During those visits, the 
mother did not interact with the child, and the court found that she has no “real 
relationship” with him. 
                                         
1  The father does not appeal from the termination of his parental rights. 
 
3 
[¶6]  In 2014, the Department filed a petition to terminate the mother’s 
parental rights, alleging that the mother has a history of command auditory 
hallucinations and suicidal ideation; has a history of substance abuse; while 
pregnant again, was admitted to a hospital in Massachusetts due to her reports of 
auditory hallucinations and suicidal statements; moved to Maryland without 
notifying the Department of her move; had no contact with her child for five 
months after she left Maine; has not engaged in any mental health treatment or 
reunification services; has no stable housing; does not engage with the child during 
the visits she does have with the child, and instead watches him and makes no 
attempt to interact with him; and has no ability to care for the child.  The court 
conducted a testimonial hearing on the termination petition.  The mother did not 
testify at the hearing, but did stipulate to her mental health issues and her failure to 
participate in various Department services. 
[¶7]  During the hearing, the court discussed its recent receipt of two letters 
from the child’s maternal grandmother, who was neither a party nor an intervener 
in the proceeding.  In one of those letters, the grandmother purported to inform the 
court that the mother and the child were members of the Seminole tribe, and 
attempted to obtain custody over the child pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare 
Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1901-1963 (LEXIS through P.L. 114-25, approved 
6/15/15).  The Department responded that, in January of 2013, when it had first 
 
4 
learned of this claim, it had contacted both the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.  Both responded to the Department’s inquiry by 
reporting that there was no record of enrollment of the parents or the child in the 
Seminole tribe or nation.  The Department had also contacted the Penobscot 
Nation, but had received no response.  Based on this information, the court 
correctly declined to apply the ICWA to this matter. 
[¶8]  The court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child on 
grounds that she is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy, is 
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a reasonable time, 
and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and 
that termination is in the best interest of the child.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).  
The mother appeals.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2014). 
[¶9]  The child is now three years old and has been with his foster family 
since he left the hospital shortly after his birth.  He suffers from a chronic lung 
disease, a hip condition, and motor skills problems, all of which require frequent 
treatment and/or therapy.  Although all of his conditions have been improving, the 
child requires a healthy parent who can meet his daily physical and emotional 
needs, as well as his greater medical needs, and who can provide safe and stable 
housing.  The foster parents who are currently caring for the child and providing 
for all of his needs wish to adopt him. 
 
5 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶10]  The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 
court’s findings of parental unfitness.  She argues that although there was sufficient 
evidence of her deficits, the court erred in failing to consider whether or how those 
deficits affect her ability to parent the child.  In particular, the mother argues that 
there was no evidence that, with family or community support, she could not 
appropriately parent the child.2  
[¶11]  Contrary to the mother’s suggestion, there was sufficient evidence to 
support the court’s judgment by clear and convincing evidence, including its 
findings that the mother’s deficits—and particularly her mental illness—affected 
her ability to parent.  Specifically, there was evidence that she has never cared for 
the child since his birth, lacks any understanding of the child’s needs, is 
subjectively uncomfortable around him, fails to interact with him during visits, and 
failed to make any efforts to rehabilitate and reunify with him.  There was also 
sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that termination is in the best 
interest of the child, i.e., that the child has particular medical and emotional needs 
that the mother is unable to understand or satisfy, and that the foster parents—who 
                                         
2  The mother also challenges the court’s alleged failure to consider a kinship placement for the child.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4003(3-A) (2014).  The placement she suggested—her own mother—was carefully 
considered by the Department, the guardian ad litem, and the court early in these proceedings, and was 
found to be completely inappropriate.  This argument is not persuasive and we do not discuss it further. 
 
6 
wish to adopt the child—have cared for those needs well since shortly after the 
child’s birth.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2); In re M.S., 2014 ME 54, ¶¶ 13, 15, 
90 A.3d 443. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Erika S. Bristol, Esq., Auburn, for appellant mother 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. 
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for 
appellee Department of Health and Human Services 
 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2012-72 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY