Case Title: In re J.I.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015 ME 130

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2015 ME 130 
Docket: 
Cum-15-1 
Argued: 
September 17, 2015 
Decided: 
October 13, 2015 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE J.I. et al. 
 
 
ALEXANDER, J. 
[¶1]  The father appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Portland, Powers, J.) terminating his parental rights to J.I. and J.I. after the court 
found, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory grounds of parental 
unfitness and determined that it is in the children’s best interests that the father’s 
parental rights be terminated so that the children may be adopted.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2) (2014).  We affirm. 
[¶2]  The father’s primary contention on appeal is that the court erred or 
abused its discretion when it determined that termination of the father’s parental 
rights was in the children’s best interests without hearing evidence of and 
considering other potential permanency planning options for the children, such as a 
kinship placement with the paternal grandmother, who lives in Pennsylvania.  The 
record demonstrates, however, that the father did not raise the issue below, before 
or even at the termination hearing.  Further, in each of the three judicial review and 
 
2 
permanency planning orders entered prior to the termination hearing, the father 
agreed to a finding that the Department had made “reasonable efforts to identify 
and finalize a permanent plan for the children.”  In noting the children’s continued 
placement with the foster family, all three orders stated: “A change in custody 
and/or placement is not consistent with the children’s best interests at this time.  
There are no relatives available to care for the children.” 
[¶3]  Importantly, the record demonstrates that the Department explored two 
other individuals as potential kinship placements in this case.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4038-B(4) (2014).  One family member was ruled out as a safe placement, and 
the other—the father’s sister in New Jersey—withdrew her application to become a 
placement for the children.  Nothing in the record suggests that either the father or 
the paternal grandmother requested that the grandmother be considered as a 
potential adoptive placement or guardian in this case. 
[¶4]  On these facts, we cannot say that the trial court erred or abused its 
discretion when it determined that termination of the father’s parental rights is in 
the children’s best interests without considering an option not presented to the 
court. 
[¶5]  The father also contends that the trial court did not engage in the best 
interest analysis required by 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) because, he alleges, the 
court considered only evidence related to his unfitness when it terminated his 
 
3 
parental rights.  Contrary to his contention, however, the court engaged in the 
statutorily required best interest analysis, and the record supports the court’s 
underlying findings.  In determining that it was in the children’s best interests that 
the father’s parental rights be terminated, the court relied on findings related to the 
children’s individual needs for stability and permanency, and the father’s inability 
to meet those needs, see In re David G., 659 A.2d 859, 862 (Me. 1995), and 
ultimately determined that freeing them for adoption1 would best meet the needs of 
the children. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                         
1  The District Court does not have the authority to decide who may adopt the children.  In a 
termination proceeding, the District Court has authority to decide that adoption is the permanency plan for 
a child, 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A)(2) (2014), but Maine’s Probate Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over 
adoptions, 18-A M.R.S. § 9-103(a)(1) (2014).  Therefore, despite the termination of the father’s parental 
rights, an interested relative, including the paternal grandmother, may still seek to adopt the children.  
See 18-A M.R.S. §§ 9-101 to 9-108 (2014).  
 
4 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Nathaniel Seth Levy, Esq., Brunswick, for appellant father 
 
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 
 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Nathaniel Seth Levy, Esq., for appellant father 
 
Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Department of 
Health and Human Services 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2013-75 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY