Case Title: In re Alexavier G.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 227

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 227 
Docket: 
Cum-17-266 
Submitted 
  On Briefs: 
November 29, 2017 
Decided: 
December 7, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE ALEXAVIER G. et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  The mother of Alexavier G. and Amaiya W. appeals from the District 
Court’s (Portland, Eggert, J.) judgment terminating her parental rights to the 
children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv) 
(2017).  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s 
findings that she failed to take responsibility for her children, is unwilling and 
unable to protect the children from jeopardy, and that both of these 
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to 
meet the children’s needs.1  She also argues that the court abused its discretion 
by refusing to continue the termination hearing to allow a witness of hers to 
testify.  Because competent evidence supports the court’s findings and we 
                                         
1  The mother does not dispute the finding that she has not made a good faith effort to rehabilitate 
and reunify with her children.  That finding alone is sufficient to support the court’s termination of 
her parental rights.  See In re Hope H., 2017 ME 198, ¶ 8, 170 A.3d 813.  The mother’s failure to contest 
this finding in her brief constitutes a waiver of this issue on appeal.  See Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 
2000 ME 15; ¶ 1 n.1, 744 A.2d 544; Seider v. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, ¶ 37, 762 
A.2d 551; M.R. App. P. 9(a) (2016). 
 
2 
conclude that the court acted within its discretion when it declined to continue 
the hearing for testimony that was cumulative and not likely to affect the 
judgment, we affirm. 
 
[¶2]  The court made the following findings of fact, which have ample 
support from competent evidence in the record: 
The Jeopardy Order required [the mother] to participate in a 
substance abuse evaluation to determine the appropriate level of 
treatment, drug testing, mental health counseling, . . . [a diagnostic] 
evaluation, parenting education, and visitation with the children.  
At the time . . . [the mother] was incarcerated, but was released two 
weeks later. . . . [S]he was free from jail only six days before she was 
arrested for a probation violation for . . . drug use.   
 
. . . She has never fulfilled [a substance abuse evaluation] to 
her detriment because the Department was not willing to fund a[n] 
. . . inpatient placement without that evaluation.  She also did not 
complete the required [diagnostic] evaluation, and has not been in 
any consistent mental health counseling.   
 
To her credit, [the mother] did take some steps toward her 
drug treatment while she was released. . . . [But then] she was 
arrested again . . . on a probation violation, testing positive for 
cocaine, oxycontin, and benzodiazepines. . . . Although the 
caseworker met her a few days after her release, she was unaware 
that the mother had used again . . . just before entering [treatment].   
 
This has been the cycle of the mother for many years. . . . She 
is, in her own words, a “chronic relapser.”  Despite times when she 
was not using, this chronic relapsing is all that her children have 
known.  It has affected these children, most noticeably [the son], 
who worries about her constantly.  [The son’s] . . . significant mental 
health and behavioral needs . . . resulted in juvenile justice 
involvement for an assault on the mother.  The children were 
 
3 
present when she was arrested [shortly after they entered the 
Department’s custody] . . . .  
 
. . . The reality is that she is in the early phases of her recovery 
and . . . the process will take up to [twenty-four] months . . . .  
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
. . . [The children] have serious behavioral and mental health 
needs.  They have been in therapeutic foster placements and need 
significant supports. . . . The son has traumatic life experiences and 
fears that would burden an adult; he is only [twelve] years old.[2]  
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
[The daughter] is only four years old, but has been diagnosed 
with [p]ost-traumatic [s]tress [d]isorder. . . .   
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
. . . Clearly, it is in the best interests of the children that they 
have permanency now.  They have waited for their mother for the 
[sixteen] months of this case and really their whole lives . . . .  
 
[¶3]  The court’s findings regarding the mother’s insufficiently treated 
substance abuse and mental health issues, as well as their past and potential 
detrimental effects on the children when they are in her care, support each of 
the independent grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv); In re Mya E., 
                                         
2  The court found that the son had witnessed his mother doing drugs and that he once “had to pull 
the needle out of her arm.” 
 
4 
2017 ME 93, ¶¶ 2, 4, 8, 161 A.3d 708; In re Haylie W., 2017 ME 157, ¶¶ 2-3, 
167 A.3d 576. 
[¶4]  Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court did not abuse its 
discretion by declining to continue the hearing to allow one of her witnesses to 
testify that the Department should have referred her to residential treatment; 
she has not articulated any prejudice, and we discern none from the record, that 
resulted from the exclusion of this cumulative testimony.  See M.R. Civ. P. 40(c), 
(d) (2017); In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶¶ 14-15, 24-27, 55 A.3d 463; In re M.B., 
2013 ME 46, ¶ 34, 65 A.3d 1260. 
The entry is: 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deborah Munson Feagans, Esq., Gorham, 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 
 
 
Portland District Court docket numbers PC-2016-04 and PC-2016-05 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY